Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 07:04:23 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I think you're losing it. It is finally sinking in on you that all
> your pseudo-science impresses nobody -- particularly nobody in the
> fields into which you intrude as a loud poseur. As a result you
> thrash around as above, without logic, without manners, without
> dignity.
David, I think we should put him on the payroll; he's far better than
either of us at embarassing and discrediting the green movement.
Seriously though, I post here for debate and information or, failing that,
human interaction. Hanson (and Nudds) are unique in failing to provide any
of the three.
Our Earth-Firster Andy-- who is much further than Hanson from my
viewpoints-- is a likeable fellow. Freisel and Scott generally yield to
rational arguments-- their differences are in premises, not logic-- and
Kelly.Cowan will sweetly apologize for calling you an evil,
corporate-licking pondscum.
Hanson, though, has his own little niche. I'm opening a betting pool on
how long until he snaps and blows away twenty diners at a restaurant.
You'll see me on CNN then, saying, "he was always a quiet fellow....."
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it
through not dying."
- Woody Allen
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:56:09 GMT
On 16 Nov 1996 21:04:11 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> In article <56kscv$5eb0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
> >
> > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
> > : In article <56f98q$4dfn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
> > :
> > : > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
> > : > : There is only one thing actually false in Ehrlich's story of the bet.
> > : > : Having to pay more than $500 on a $1,000 futures contract is not "a
> > : > : small sum" relative to the size of the contract. The tale is fuzzy in
> > : > : other ways than not mentioning how much Ehrlich had to pay. Of
> > : > : course, for a man who got a $350,000 prize for making repeated false
> > : > : predictions, $500 is a small sum. To mention only the false
> > : > : prediction in _The Population Bomb_ is again fuzzing up matters.
> > : >
> > : > It is, actually. Futures contracts are dangerous if you don't know what
> > : > you're doing, because you can end up losing (and being liable for) much
> > : > more than the amount of the contract. That 1000 above is probably
> > : > margin on something worth more like 10,000. I don't know if the usual
> > : > margin is as high as 10-1, but for oil before the Gulf War, though, it
> > : > was usually above 5-1 and was only lowered to about 3 or 4 to 1 (8,000
> > : > per contract, price between 22 and 32, in the last two months of 1990)
> > : > because of the volatility.
> > : >
> > : > If Erlich had been _badly_ wrong, he could have lost several times more
> > : > than he did. If you bought call on Jan 91 oil at 25 dollars in Sep 90
> > : > (before the doubling of the margin) and it had only dropped to 23, you
> > : > would have lost half your contract. That is miniscule compared to what
> > : > actually happened to the price. Most people lost everything and landed
> > : > in debt.
> > :
> > : Bruce Scott is confused.
> >
> > : No margins were involved in the bet.
> >
> > : Ehrlich could not have lost more than $1,000. If the price of the
> > : metals had gone to zero, $1,000 is what he would have lost. Since the
> > : price only halved (in constant dollars), he only had to pay about
> > : $500. Simon was the one with the unlimited risk. If the price of
> > : metals had gone up by a factor of 10, he would have had to pay $9,000.
> > : If it had gone up by 100, he would have had to pay $99,000.
> >
> > It is John McCarthy who doesn't know what he talking about. What he
> > describes is a "call option", not a "futures contract", although he
> > indeed calls it a "futures contract", which is why I, not knowing the
> > story of the bet, assumed it was a "futures contract".
>
> I just looked up "futures contract" in the on-line Encyclopedia
> Britannica as it refers to the commodities market. As far as I can
> see, my original usage was correct and Bruce Scott's vehement
> correction was mistaken.
>
>---
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
> a lot.
A "call option" is an option to buy at a stated price at a stated future date.
Being an option, it need not be exercised. The cost of the option will be lost.
If the market price is below the option price, the option is exercised and the
owner profits by selling at the market price.
Maximum loss is fixed by the cost of the option. Maximum gain is limited
only by the market.
CALL Option $100 Actual future market price
(cost=$25) zero $100 $200 $9000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit (loss) ($25) ($25) $75 $8875
A "futures contract" is a legally binding contract to buy (or sell) at a
fixed price at a fixed future date. Being a contract, it must be fulfilled.
Contract at $100 Actual future market price
zero $100 $200 $9000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracted to Buy ($100) 0 $100 $8900
Contracted to Sell $100 0 ($100) ($8900)
What Ehrlich had was not an option, but a contract. He could not opt out.
He had a "Call Contract" at the current market prices, let's say "$100".
Call Contract Actual future market price
at $500 zero $500 $1000 $9000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ehrlich's profit(loss): $500 zero ($500) ($8500)
Notice the assymetry. I suspect that Ehrlich did not have a
game theory expert as consultant, ideologues don't use them.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
or: www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Effect on Sea Level
From: Justin Lancaster
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 02:18:21 -0500
Leonard Evens wrote:
>
> Andy & Sophie Smout wrote:
> >
> > Greetings!
> >
> > I am interested in any information on the predicted change in sea-level as
> > a consequence of global warming. Does anyone know what the current climatic
> > models say? I think I have heard numbers up to 10 metres quoted, but don't
> > know the source of this information and whether it is in any sense recent
> > or reliable. Also, I would be interested to know wheter any rise in sea
> > level would be the same over the whole surface of the earth, or would be
> > greater near the equator.
> >
> > Does anyone know the current state of the art? Specifically, I would like
> > to move to the seaside in Scotland, but don't want to buy a house that will
> > be underwater after 25 years or so... :-)
> >
> > Andy Smout
>
> In addition to the other sources recommended to you, look at Climate
> Change 1995 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
>
> Briefly, most projections place the increase at tens of centimeters,
> not meters over the next century. A seaside house is not likely to be
> under water in 25 years. However, if it is on low lying land which is
> now just about at sea level, it could be affected more by storm surges
> than in the past. There are of course a lot of uncertainties in these
> projections. The joker in the deck is possible unstability in part of
> the antarctic ice sheet. If that collapsed, there could be
> catastrophic rises in sea level. However, the IPCC considers this
> unlikely, at least in the short term.
>
> --
> Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
> Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> Evanston Illinois
In case anybody doesn't want to dig through the referenced volumes, the
current estimates are still in the neighborhood of perhaps 1/2 meter
rise owing to thermal expansion and 1/2 meter rise owing to continental
ice melt during the next century. An important uncertainty relates to
whether or not greater precipitation at the poles might actually lead to
net accretion of water there during this period.
An important point made in the discussion above about whether or not to
purchase seashore homes, is that coastal storms are what one should
worry about. There is good reason to believe that a more energetic
atmosphere and surface ocean will lead to more frequent and more
energetic storms. The insurance industry has perhaps been feeling this
reality during the last fifteen years of rapid warming.
Storm surge will be a function of the specific off-shore morphology,
i.e., the extent to which the ocean floor near the coast line interacts
with (or impedes) tha ability of subsurface flow to return oceanward
when pressure and wind "pile-up" water near the shore.
If your house is near a rocky shore that plunges to depth rather
quickly, and you are far enough up to allow large waves to break away
from your porch, then you are likely to be OK at 2 or more meters above
current sea level.
j. lancaster
environmental science and policy institute
lexington, MA, USA
Subject: - Unique Recycling Business -
From: "Ian Nicholson"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 09:13:12 GMT
Dear Fellow Net User
_________________
I am at present able to offer you a unique business opportunity within
the recycling industry. The product is going to revolutionise the way in
which we treat discarded tyres because we do not recycle them we
reuse them. The following is a brief description of the way in which
that is achieved:
The tyres are cut in half, punched for slow seepage, and stapled
together to form a semi circular canal for water drainage.
In utilising this drainage system erosion and sedimentation is virtually
stopped in its tracks and water velocity is drastically reduced,
reducing the likelihood of down stream flooding. It is very useful on
the sides of roads, railway lines, irrigation canals, mine and
construction sites, as well as being used to drain wet areas.
This is just some examples of the uses of tyredrain and at present we
are trying to promote this patented product outside of Australia.
If you are interested in the product please visit our net page to give
you a better understanding of its application.
I hope to hear from you soon and gain some feedback.
Best regards,
Ian Nicholson.
Director,
Tyredrain Australia Pty. Ltd.
8 Wilson St, Hamilton, NSW
Australia, 2303
Email: tyredrain@hunterlink.net.au
Net Page: http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddin
Subject: re: Nuclear Safety disinformation (was Re: Dangerous Solar)
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 09:55:39 GMT
Michael Turton wrote:
> Mike, your claim that no workers have died in nuclear plants is
> absurd. There have been a large number of deaths worldwide including a
> number in the US, beginning with the three killed at Idaho Falls in
1960....
You're off-base here. My claim was for commercial power generation. Idaho
Falls is home to the US National Reactor Testing Station, a research
facility also involved with military waste reprocessing. A site further
removed from commercial nuclear power would be hard to find. By the way,
the accident you're referring to was January 3, 1961, not 1960. The
incident occurred at the SL-1 *experimental* reactor (emphasis mine), and
was a steam explosion caused by a power excursion. Two of the three
workers killed were active-duty Navy personnel.
As for "a number in the US, beginning with...", I reiterate, there have
been no fatal accidents at commercial reactors. The SL-1 accident is,
according to the US DOE, the ONLY fatal accident at any type of reactor:
commercial, military, or experimental.
> Your claim also does not include the numbers who have died as a result of
> military use of nuclear power, aboard Soviet subs and so forth.
For good reason-- we're discussing commercial power generation.
Furthermore, I confined my remarks to North America, though I know of no
fatalities in Europe or Asia. Your objection is thus doubly inappropriate.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Wind Power (was Re: Dangerous Solar)
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 09:51:14 GMT
Michael Turton wrote:
>
> Ludicrous? How strange, then, that it the Energy Information
> Administration (EIA) of the DOE has printed in several of its
publications
> that wind could, in fact account for a very significant proportion of the
> US energy supply. North Dakota alone could account for more than a
third.
I've already disproved this on technical grounds, now I'll do it on
pragmatic ones. If windpower is a superior, cost-competitive source, why
is it not being used? The Federal government and various utilities have
spend hundreds of millions to develop it, public perception supports it,
environmental groups demand it, and energy-hungry industries would kill for
it.
The reasons are cost, performance, and availability. Subsidized wind farms
have been built many times; their cost per kilowatt-hour runs from two to
eight times higher than coal or nuclear; their maintenance costs are
prohibitive, and noise pollution and bird deaths are as yet unsolved
problems. In every case, it is a race to see what will shut the windfarm
down first-- lawsuits from nearby homeowners and animal activists, or the
enormous cost of running the site.
If you want to theorize some new technology that changes these factors,
please do so. I'm discussing current realities, not possible futures.
> Wind plants have a number of advantages over nuclear plants, such as
> greater on-line reliability
This is perhaps the greatest shortcoming of wind power: it is only
available when the wind blows. Also, wind towers have critical wind
velocities, under which they will generate no power. The larger ones
planned for industrial power generation typically require windspeeds
anywhere from 6 to 18 mph. Even when the threshold is met, low windspeeds
reduce output. Windpower technology results in a lower online percentage
than solar, increasing requirements for energy storage-- another unsolved
problem. Coal and nuclear, of course, do not require storage.
> lower maintenance costs, less waste from power
> generation, space (remember, nuke plants have to have mines and waste
> disposal areas)
Maintenance costs at real-world windplants have far outstripped designers
estimates. As I said in my first post, this is why the smaller windmills
are practical. The stress from wind pulsing across a 100-foot wind vane is
enormous. And, unlike a coal-plant boiler or nuclear containment shell,
you cannot solve the problem by throwing more material at it; the parasitic
weight of thicker vanes reduces generation and increases the stress.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Re: Conversion of "absolute" environmental thermal energy to "potential energy".
From: Jim Barr
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:10:28 +0000
In article <56j3l9$f76@niamh.indigo.ie>, keithb
writes
>Energy from the Environment.
>
>It is conceded that the extraction and conversion of the
>Thermal Energy ( K) of the environment, to Potential
>Energy, i.e. the ability to perform work, is a concept that
>is generally considered unacceptable.
>
>Nevertheless, a means of achieving such a conversion, is
>established in nature, which circumvents the restrictions
>of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, without
>contravening them, and offers an unprecedented
>opportunity to secure a practical energy conversion, with
>the most profound and immediate potential benefit.
>
>The theory upon which this concept is based, is unique to
>conversion from a thermal reservoir in the absence of a
>natural temperature gradient A thermal reservoir such as
>this exists only in this context, and therefore, is not
>relevant to any other application. An analogy may be
>drawn with the concept of the geo-stationary satellite, in
>its' unique application.
>
>This concept can actually be demonstrated by a
>currently unexplained, but factual example.
>
>This claim, specifically, does NOT relate to the "heat
>pump", which does realise thermal energy from the
>thermal environment, and specifically, does NOT relate
>to potential energy converted from existing NATURAL
>thermal gradients, in selected areas, ie. OTEC.
>
>These new proposals offer conversion within a
>UNIVERSAL environment, where ever an accessible
>energy source is sufficient to sustain the requisite energy
>drain. The thermal storage capacity of this source, is the
>only limiting factor to the amount of energy that can be
>extracted.
>
>The profound implications of such a breakthrough are
>most obvious to the discerning physicist. It is of
>particular note, that the massive capacity of oceans, to
>absorb and retain, the radiated heat from the sun, coupled
>with Oceans' thermal convection and physical flow
>characteristics, make an ideal source of virtually
>unlimited renewable unpolluting energy, within the
>context of our planets' composition.
>
>There are also countless other components in the earth's
>environment which have extremely important practical
>applications, not the least of which, is the transient
>thermal energy in the ambient air or water of a moving
>vehicle or vessel.
>
>The conviction that there IS an indirect route, via old and
>largely neglected technology, to the realisation of energy
>from the environment, has been received, not
>surprisingly, with profound derision, impatience and an
>unwillingness to consider such a possibility.
>
>Over many years, however this criticism has only served
>to engender even more effort to substantiate the
>conviction.
>
>Now in the evening of his retirement from a life time of
>substantial scientific involvement, the author is anxious
>that the perceived value of his concept will not be lost
To aquire credibility, a spam MUST be written in English (or at least
the language of the author which I assume is English)
It sounds like rubbish, but that may be because I cannot understand a
******* word of it!
Jim Barr Machine Conversation
http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/
Best is the enemy of good enough
Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 11:09:40 GMT
Michael Turton wrote:
>
> > If oil becomes too expensive due to decreasing supply, some other
> >energy source will become the most efficient compromise
>
> Unfortunately, there is no support from the history of technology
> for this point of view.
This is quite possibly the most entertaining post from you yet. This is
most likely a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
New technology always supplants the old, if superior in a given
application. The inertia of an existing product may delay it, but not
prevent it. That power is given only to governments, who may legislate a
technology into oblivion. The history of technology has, literally, tens
of thousands of supporting instances, The light bulb supplanted gas
lighting, which supplanted whale oil, which supplanted candles, which
supplanted darkness at sunset. The computer supplanted the calculator,
which supplanted the abacus, which supplanted fingers and toes. Alloys
and composites are supplanting steel which supplanted iron which supplanted
bronze which supplanted stone. The chip replaced the transistor which
replaced the vacuum tube which replaced the spark gap. The 28K modem
replaced the 14.4 which replaced the 2400 which replaced the 300 which
replaced the 110 which replaced smoke signals.
> Around the turn of the century, there were a number of competing
> powerplants for automobiles,and good arguments to be made for steam and
> electric cars.
Electric cars? In 1910? You're going to have a hard time living this one
down. Detail, if you will, a possible electric-car design with
turn-of-the-century technology.
Your fallacy is in defining superior in regards to some mythical reference
standard. It depends on application and usage. Fluorescent lights are
superior technology for commercial buildings, who are concerned primary
with power costs. Note that flourescent dominated this market within
years of its introduction. Residential users, however, prefer
incandescent, due to lower capital costs and better esthetics. Flourescent
has small penetration in the residental sector, as it is _not_ superior in
this application.
The automobile quickly replaced the horse, except in cases where 'horse
technology' was superior-- isolated areas without repair parts, filling
stations, and other necessary infrastructure. As cars improved in range
and reliability, they replaced more and more horses. However, animal power
is still a superior technology in extremely rugged terrain, where it is
used even today.
The television replaced radio as a general entertainment device, except in
those instances where radio was still superior-- lightweight, low-cost
reception of news and music. The CD supplanted LPs entirely (as they were
superior in all respects) but only dented cassette tapes, as they failed to
record. VHS tapes supplanted , and edged out Beta (a slightly superior
implementation) due to better availability. Cel phones have _not_
replaced the telephone network, as they are only superior where high
mobility is required.
Hundreds of other examples leap to mind, but I think I've sufficiently
demolished this fallacy. I'll move on.
> Was the
> IBM PC better than the Mac and Amiga? Of the three, it had the worst
> interface, the worst multimedia capabilities and the worst
memory-management
> system, yet due to IBM's perspicacious decision to allow clones to be
made
> and to its incredible market clout and reputation, and to the values of
> businessmen (who would not buy colorful Amigas because anything with
color
> *must* be a toy) the PC is now the most dominant. I won't even bother to
> discuss MS-DOS.
This argument is so old as to be tiresome. First, multimedia capabilities
were, in the early 80s, not a selling point for business. The average
user doesn't even know what memory management is, he just cares what
applications will run. And the PC had superior business applications, more
of them, better documented and better supported. Speaking of support, this
is another reason IBM dominated-- they offered extensive support to
businesses, a tremendous factor when PCs (and even computers in general)
were viewed suspiciously. I bought an Amiga when first introduced-- it
shipped with games in the box. Business apps were months or years behind,
and you wonder why industry called it a toy?
Worse, the example of the PC works against your claim . Microcomputers are
all differing implementations of the same technology, nearly identical when
contrasted with the older technology they replaced. Within a decade of
their introduction, they totally dominated the marketplace. Better
technology always wins. Claiming this is false over the Mac/PC debate is
like claiming electricity is a failure, because 70 hz power would be more
efficient than 60. Who cares? It's still better than whale oil.
> ... heck, light water reactors are not even the most efficient
> design; yet they won out because of decisions made by Rickover...
A bit misleading. LW reactors were one of the best designs for their
original requirements-- high-density power generation for submarines. For
commercial generation, they are indeed a poor choice, and were used for
initial reactors as a proven design. The implementation of safer, more
efficient reactors has not proceeded due to the NRC's failure to certify
new designs, and the utilities avoidance of risk-taking, due to regulated
profit levels.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Re: CFCs ... explained for Leonard
From: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 12:19:34 GMT
Dave (wingnut@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: Leonard -
: Quite simply the whole Montreal Protocol on CFC's is a sham.
: 1. The ozone hole isn't a hole. It's an area near anarctica where
: the mean level of O3 is 10% less than the 'normal' average
Ah, you averaged the Ozone level over the entire year. Too bad that the
problem referred to as the 'Ozone hole' is a catastrophic depletion of
ozone which occurs immediately after sunlight returns to the Antarctic
region.. Too bad also that a similar event was observed this year in
the Artic. Too bad that overall column depletion can exceed 50%, and
that at some altitudes, there is practically speaking no ozone left.s
Too bad you have not read the FAQ on ozone, or any book on
atmospheric chemistry.
:
: 2. R-12 refridgerant is Cl3FlC which looks like this: FL
: |
: Cl----C---Cl
: |
: Cl
:
: 3. R-134a, the "environmentally safe" substitute is Cl2Fl2C: Fl
: |
: Cl------C------Fl
: |
: Cl
WRONG... R-134a is a HFC (no chlorine) CF3CFH2. There is a simple
way of figuring out how many F, H, C and Cl atoms there are in
any freon. Take the number (12 or 134) add 90 to it (102 or 224)
Then the hundreds place tells you the number of C atoms (1 or 2),
the tens place the number of hydrogen atoms (0 or 2) and the
ones place the number of Fl atoms (2 or 4). Since the (H)(C)FCs
are all saturated (no double or triple bonds, you determine the
number of Cl atoms by counting the number of bonds which are not
accounted for. If C=1 then there are 4 bonds, if C=2 then 6, etc.
Thus the number of Cl atoms for R-12 is 4-2=2 and for R134a
it is 6-2-4=0 or no Cl atoms.
: 4. The new stuff has 2 atoms of chlorine, which through a process changes O3 (ozone) to O2, free oxygen.
: The old stuff had 3 atoms. WOW, a 33% drop.
No the old stuff had TWO atoms of chlorine, the new stuff has NO
atoms of chlorine, a 100% drop....
: 5. R-12 used to sell for about $1.50 for a 12oz bottle.
:
: 6. R-134a sells now for about $13.50 for a 12oz bottle.
:
: 7. Do the math. Figure out which is the winner here - DuPont or the ozone layer.
Well, first you should do the chemistry, but there is a lot wrong
with your economics also, as a post above from Bruce Hamilton showed.
Chew on this one: Why do you assume that the replacements have
captured the entire CFC market? Are you assuming that refrigeration
was the ONLY use for CFCs? (Hint it was not) Further, there was
a capital cost to the chemical companies to developing and switching
to manufacture of the HFCs, how will that effect their profits.
In short, not only don't you know what you are talking about, you
don't even suspect what you are talking about. Go do some reading
and learning.
josh halpern
:
: Dave
--
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: ey7731@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU ("j.b. DiGriz")
Date: 16 Nov 1996 22:40:43 GMT
In article <328E1FED.4C60@cco.caltech.edu>, William Royea writes:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>>
>
>> Hehehe. Are you serious with this argument? First of all, the total area
>> of every rooftop in the country is certainly a "vast collection area".
>> Secondly, falls are already the second leading cause of accidental death in
>> the US. Even if "trained individuals" did perform the cleaning, it is
>> these same individuals that die by the thousands every year from falling
>> off roofs. Also, to think that most homeowners will pay someone to come
>> out weekly or monthly and clean their collectors is ludicrous-- most people
>> will do it themselves.
>
>
>I am serious with this argument. Moreover, if you'll re-read what I
>orignially wrote, I stated that rooftops do not constitute a vast
>collection area "DEDICATED" to energy collection.
>
>Why do you find it so outrageous that homeowners would be willing to
>pay for someone to clean solar arrays? I won't disagree that the
>initial cost of manufacturing and putting up solar cells is currently
>too
>costly to be a feasible replacement for coal or nuclear- that is if you
>only consider the direct costs of coal and nuclear and assume that
>you're
>paying for the solar array coverage area. However, once up and
>running, the only maintancence comes down to cleaning the arrays, and I
>would argue that that is far cheaper than the price of energy today.
>
>Suppose it was mandatory that you allow energy companies to put solar
>cells on your rooftop. These companies wouldn't have to compensate you
>for doing so, and the startup cost would then be considerably cheaper.
>Your energy costs would come primarily from cleaning the solar arrays.
>
>> > The containment system for a nuclear plant uses far
>> > more concrete than any equivalent-power producing solar array.
>>
>> Wrong. A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor requires approximately 4000 tons of
>> concrete. We've never been able to build a 1000 megawatt solar plant but
>> the ten megawatt plant "Solar One" required almost 20,000 tons of concrete.
>> Five times as much material, for 1/100 the power output....and Solar One
>> is only online during the _daytime_. I will add that, during its short
>> period of operation, Solar One managed to catch fire and burn, seriously
>> injuring two workers. So, in a couple of years of operation, a 10 MW
>> solar plant managed to cause more human injury than decades of operation by
>> over 100 domestic nuclear reactors. But solar power *is* safe, because we
>> think it to be so.
>
>Look, I'm not saying that Solar One is a well-engineered solar plant. If
>you put solar arrays on rooftops, the structural support is already
>there.
>
>You're comparing a system that's been around for some time (nuclear)
>with a beaurcratic prototype of a system that hasn't even been adopted
>in
>this country. There are better ways to go about solar energy collection
>than Solar One.
Hmm, he says Solar One produces 50 megawatts, and here he says 10.
j.b.
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:19:20 GMT
William Royea (royea@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Rod Adams wrote:
: If this is your only "energy" cost, yes. The only concession I'll make
: is that the initial manufacturing/installation costs of solar panels is
: not cost effective if you only account for the direct costs of nuclear
: and coal. If you take into account the cost of the wars we wage, the
: cost of nuclear waste disposal, the cost of security, etc. etc. I can
: easily see us paying $20/hour to these solar panel cleaners and still
: coming out ahead.
Stop ruining Caltech's image by posting gibberish. HLW disposal,
decomissioning, etc. are all accounted for in the cost. Consumers have
poured over $12 billion into the HLW fund to date. The real problem is
that the gov't has spent nearly a third of that and has yet to
characterize Yucca Mt. as acceptable.
: Why do you insist on developing Solar 1 plants? Solar one is a poorly
: engineered solar plant. If you had solar cells on rooftops rather than
: on dedicated land, you would already have the structural support. And
: don't give me this BS about rooftops not being able to sustain such
: loads.
It's Solar 2 now. I'm curious to see your engineering analysis of
Solar 2, please post it. BTW, Solar 2 uses heliostats, not PVs but I'm
sure you were aware of that.
: Rod Adams wrote:
: > Again, there are numbers that refute your claim. If you put all of
: > the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
: > entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
: > containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
: > the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
:
: Boy, I'd sure love to work at that facility.
You could always sign for a health physics elective when you're a sophmore.
Ignorance can be cured (stupidity on the other hand...).
: Looking back on what I stated, you are right, I am wrong. Nonetheless,
: the peak load hours are during the summer, right smack in the middle of
: the day, when the sun is at its peak. You will have storage
: requirements, but cadmium is not necessary, because even the load
: levelers used today in other countries run off lead-acid batteries just
: fine.
Careful with your genralizations. Here in the NE, peak load occur in the
winter and many times peak loads (anywhere) occur during late aft/early
eve. BTW, that was one of the feature of Solar 2, i.e. the ability to
"store" the energy for a few hours in the form of a molten salt. Lead,
sounds like environmental friendly material to me. Hmm, why did we
remove it from gasoline, paint, etc. :-)
: If all the nuclear waste is recyclable as you claim it is, why the hell
: are we burying it in the ground in sealed containers. That sounds more
: like a land fill than a recycling plant.
I'm glad you support reprocessing also. Frace and the UK have
operational reprocessing facilites at La Hagu and Sellafield respectively.
tooie
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:21:42 +0000
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> >The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
> >number of cars being made. Linear relationships dominate the economy,
> >except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
> >capital costs and design costs.
> John,
> Hogwash. The amount of steel required to make cars declines with
> number produced: the factories are largely made out of steel,
> remember? Even if this were not so, higher production would bring
> about economies of scale in the recycling of scrap.
As a first approximation, for small variations in the number
of cars produced, the amount of steel consumed by the
factory per year will be a linear function of the number of
cars produced. You don't build a new factory if the number
of cars produced varies by 10-30%, nor will such fluctutation
help much with recycling efficiency.
> Linear relationships do not "dominate" the economy. Sheesh, they are
> entirely absent from any economy. This starts at the level of "buy
> two, get one free" and goes clear through every function in the entire
> joint.
> The reason linear algebra is more true to economics than calculus is
> that it allows you to flush new sets of parameters through whole
> matrices of arguments, to look at nearby realities. This occurs in
> functions which are themselves anything but linear. "Linear" is a
> misnomer for the style.
Input-output matrices are not intrinsically limited to
linear mapping, they are in general a useful way of relating
initial states to final states when you don't know, or don't
care, about the microphysics of the intermediate stages.
If the mapping happens to be linear then you get additional
use out of the matrices, but that's gravy.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 17 Nov 1996 14:41:44 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > : Steinn Sigurdsson writes:
>
> : > : > ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
> : > : > > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : > : > > : BF FF FI
> : > : > > : p q p q
> : > : > >
> : > : > > : 1995 2 20 10 1 100
> : > : > >
> : > : > > : 1996 2 15 11 5 170 <- WRONG: 102 is correct.
>
> : > : > I'd like to see that calculation explicitly.
>
> : > : Ah, I see, your index is
> : > : Sum_i (New price_i * Old Quantity_i)/Sum_i (Old price_i*Old Quantity_i)
>
> : > Thanks for giving me the credit, but I didn't invent the concept
> : > of a price index. _Everybody_ who's ever calculated one knows that
> : > the idea is to hold the quantity constant, and measure only the change
> : > in price. Your method doesn't do this, and so it's _wrong_. This is
> : > not a matter of opinion. Most of you criticisms of the fish CPI rest
> : > on your confusion of prices and quantities and so they are wrong too.
>
> : No hold on a second here. I constructed my example
> : to hold the quantity constant - 20 or 21 units of
> : fish are sold each year, which is reasonable assuming
> : people eat roughly constant amounts and that the
> : supply is fixed by the catch effort, not variable, which
> : is a reasonable assumption.
> 20 isn't 21. You are backtracking with increasingly implausible
Recalculate it with 6 units of FF instead of 5, it
is not hard.
> explanations of what you were trying to do. A price index
> holds the bundle of goods constant. That is, the vector of
> quantities, not the sum of the quantities.
> Consider how absurd your "method" would be if applied to the whole CPI,
> which includes not only fish, but also cars. We can't sum fish and
> cars, as you'd like to, since the units aren't the same. By the same
> reasoning, if we could sum them, as you do, then the units must be the
> same, and there is no reason to have an index.
Ah, consider whether the CPI differentiates between
Safeway's "breaded cod fillets" and Safeway's
"new southern spiced breaded cod fillets", and what
happens when the latter become popular.
You don't have to go to the reductio ad absurdum of
an unweighted index to realise that the current
way of constructing the index may hide trends.
> Also, you've once again demonstrated that you don't know
> what economists mean by "supply."
I do know what people who sell fish mean by "supply".
> : Thus what changes is the price, and if the people
> : measuring the price index of "fish" fail to
> : separate the "basic fish" from the "fancy fish"
> : they will see an apparent rise in the index of 70% or so,
> : because they will see constant sales of "fish units"
> : put people paying a higher price in the second year.
> Now you claim that you knew that your example merely _demonstrates
> an error_. Fine, I agree.
No, I claim that the example relied on the economists
constructing an index note and allow for a change in
the composition of the basket of goods weighed into
the index. I _know_ for what has actually happened
for actual government economists constructing actual
CPIs, for the purpose of labour negotiations, and have
failed to allow for precisely such changes because they
didn't understand what they were doing when they added
up the indices.
> I even agree that there are goods (like VCRs), where the BLS
> may make such errors. However, I don't agree that the BLS
> ever makes such errors in the fish index. It's not hard
> to tell cod from haddock from fish sticks. You accuse
> the BLS of being unable to do this, which is absurd.
That is your strawman. What I'm saying is the BLS smooths
the basked of goods at some level - they can surely
distinguish cod from haddock, but they may not distinguish
cod fillets from "ready to microwave breaded cod fillets"
and I don't believe they distinguish the latter from
the "new, exciting southern spiced ready to microwave
breaded cod fillets". Hence the constructed example.
> : If they manage to distinguish the two different classes
> : of fish, they still see a rise in price, which does
> : not reflect a supply shortage - which what this sub-thread
> : was originally about, remember?
> A rise in price can be due to a decrease in supply or an increase
> in demand. I've never asserted otherwise.
Or neither.
> Frankly, although it an understanding of supply and
> demand would shed a lot of light on the proper interpretation
> of the rise in the price of fish, it's too simple a model
> and it won't tell you the whole story.
Then why did you raise the issue of the faster than
mean rise in the CPI of fish being indicative of
a supply problem??? That is how this started, remember?
> : > : That does indeed give a 2% year-year increase in the CPI,
> : > : which is quite reasonable, and I would think the natural
> : > : response of FF price in response to sharply rising demand
> : > : is that it go up - where as your example assumed it went down
> : > : with rising demand... Whence Econ 101 there?
> : > No. My example assumed that people bought more and at the same
> : > time, the price went down. This is consistent with the supply
> : > curve shifting out. It is also consistent with both curves
> : > shifting at the same time. In general, data about prices
> : > and quantities tells us _nothing_ about supply and
> : > demand. If you ever take econ 1, this question will be on
> : > the test.
> : I seriously doubt I'll be taking econ 1, I already have enough
> : letters after my name and prefer to get economic theory straight
> : from my colleagues.
> : I'm puzzled at your assertion about the relationship between
> : prices and quantities - they assuredly tell us _something_ about
> : supply and demand (eg. the supply can not possibly have been
> : less than the quantity sold... and last I checked, at fixed
> : supply and rising demand the usual response is for the price
> : to rise).
> Ask your collegues to explain to you the difference between
> "the quantity sold increased" and "demand increased."
> The latter refers to a shift in the curve, and the former
> merely describes two points that may or may not be on the
> same curve.
This is orthogonal to the flaw in your original
point. Or are you prepared to show an instance where
more quantities of something were sold then there was
a supply to sell?
> : Your constructed price examples, BTW, appeared nonsensical
> : and artificial for the purpose of showing a declining CPI
> : in the presence of increased sales of a value added product.
> To you perhaps, but my example is in line with the facts.
I don't believe you.
> You assert that there has been a shift to expensive, processed
> fish. This may be so. But if so, it caused the fish CPI to
> rise _less_ then otherwise. That's because processed fish,
> although more expensive, has not been rising in price as
> fast as fresh fish.
So? As I noted the processed fish products benefit both
from technology deflation and from economy of scale.
> : > : > My assumption was FI = 100*(2*15+11*5)/(2*20+10*1)=170
> : > : > I assumed the price of fancy fish would rise a little
> : > : > due to increased demand, but that most of the
> : > : > price difference reflects labour intensive value
> : > : > added (ie BF and FF are the same raw fish, but FF
> : > : > has value added as it is, say spiced&ready; to cook,
> : > : > while BF is just a plain fillet).
> : > : >
> : > : > > : 1997 2 10 12 11 178(since1996)
> : > : > > : 304(since 1995)
> : >
> : > : With the (correct) CPI calculation the 1996-1997
> : > : increase is now 6%, and 12% over 1995. Note the quantity
> : > : of raw material in demand is still not increasing.
> : >
> : > : > > You really should understand the basics before you make esoteric
> : > : > > criticisms. A price index holds the bundle of goods constant over
> : > : > > time. This is the whole point. Because you don't understand this,
> : > : > > your calculations are wrong.
> : >
> : > : My apologies, I misunderstood your defined index. You are mistaken
> : > : if you believe there is unique definition of a price index,
> : >
> : > There is more than one way, yes, but _all_ of them hold the
> : > quantities constant between two years. Your method doesn't do this,
> : > and so it is not a price index.
>
> : I did hold the quantity constant between the years! Add them
> : up (well, except for letting q slip one unit in the middle
> : year, that was an unnecessary refinement).
> : I think you misunderstand what the concept of an "index" is,
> : it is not unique to economics, nor is there a law of nature
> : as to how the indices are constructed. I can give you real
> : life examples if you want.
> If you were merely trying to show how to calculate the average price of
> fish per pound, regardless of what types of fish were bought, then you
> hardly needed such an elaborate example. And this would not be an
> index, BTW, since the units would be meaningful.
I don't think you know what you are talking about,
your last sentence makes no sense, and I'm getting
the feeling that you wouldn't know a weighted mean
if one came and bit you.
...
> : No, it is not irrelevant, it is the whole point.
> : I think you've forgotten why this became a point of
> : debate in the first place.
...
> : Ergo you can't assert that simply because CPI for "fish"
> : rose more rapidly than the general CPI, that this implies
> : anything much about fish supplies.
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar? Then stay away from beaches...
From: Rod Adams
Date: 17 Nov 1996 15:05:31 GMT
Will Stewart wrote:
>Some persons here seem to think that PV panels require frequent
>cleaning. I would like to see some evidence (not frenetic conjecture)
>that PV panels need more than one simple hosedown a year.
>
Will, what kind of evidence would convince you that solar collectors
will experience power output degradation if allowed to accumulate
dirt, bird droppings, leaves, sediment from water, etc?
Anecdotally, I know that a large solar array was put on the roof of
the Natatorium at the US Naval Academy during the mid 1970s, when
there was a flurry of concern regarding energy supplies. (I will
grant that the system was not a PV system, but a simple solar thermal
water heater.)
The system was designed to provide a supply of warm water to heat the
pool located under the roof. It worked well enough during the first
year to keep the pool temperature above 68 F, (still pretty cool in
my book) but within 3 years had degraded due to accumulated dirt
and water sediment to the point where it was retired in place because
anaylsis showed that only frequent (and rather expensive) cleanings
would be required to retain even a moderate heating efficiency.
>> >Environmental damage from solar power? The silicon comes from the sand
>> >as does the glass. The containment system for a nuclear plant uses far
>> >more concrete than any equivalent-power producing solar array.
>>
>> William, you are dead wrong on this comment.
>
>Rod, I must take exception with this. See below.
>
>> The amount of concrete
>> needed to build a containment vessel is well documented, but even if
>> it were not, you could do a rough calculation based on the size
>> of the building and the thickness of the walls.
>>
>> If you even attempted to run the numbers, you would find that even a
>> thin layer of concrete spread over 75 acres (Solar 1) uses
>> more concrete than a typical 1000 MW nuclear power plant containment
>> building.
>
>Concrete is *not* spread over 75 acres with Solar 1 (now Solar 2).
>And with PV panels on roofs, no concrete is needed.
>
Will, I will grant that concrete is not spread over 75 acres in a thin
layer, but I would be willing to bet that there is an awful lot of
concrete in the foundations of the posts that hold up that vast array
of steerable mirrors. In fact, I think someone else posted some
enlightening figures.
Again, you might wave off the difficulty of installing PV panels on
roofs, but as a somewhat technically trained individual, I cannot.
If you build a large collector area of very thin material, you can
get away without reinforcements, but you put the expensive array at
risk of being destroyed with a moderate wind. If you make the array
strong enough to withstand a wind force equal to the code requirements
in my area (110 MPH, I believe) you will add enough weight to the roof
to require additional structural supports. Adding structural supports
to an existing wooden truss/plywood covered with shingles or tile roof
is not a cheap proposition and not one that should be attempted by
untrained individuals.
In other words, the installation costs (even if given the array)
of a rooftop PV system will be considerable. If you finance the cost
of the system, the payments will be more than you currently pay to the
monopoly electricity provider in most areas of the country.
The best estimate that I have for the cost per kilowatt hour for
a rooftop PV system is on the order of 25 cents USD. That system,
installed on my house would not allow me to divorce from the local
utility, since it does not provide adequate backup power in the case
of more than a few hours of clouds at peak collection time.
Since electricity costs about 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour here, I would
be rather foolish to even consider installing such a system, especially
since I think that a lot of costs are being ignored in the estimate.
>> The steel
>> >frames are completely recyclable. The cadmium is used in storage of the
>> >energy and is also both recyclable and replaceable with other,
>> >less-hazerdous materials. Besides, you have to store the energy no
>> >matter how you generate it. The generation of other hazardous materials
>> >in manufacturing the solar cells is far less than the amount of nuclear
>> >waste you produce on a per kwh basis.
>> >
>> Again, there are numbers that refute your claim. If you put all of
>> the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
>> entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
>> containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
>> the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
>
>These numbers are not weighed by health impact of the materials.
Will, though spent nuclear fuel is definitely a health hazard if not
properly contained, I challenge you to document a single case of
anyone in the United States receiving any kind of health impact from the
thousands of metric tons that have already been produced.
The simple fact is that the amount of material is small and that the
people assigned to handle it know what they are doing well enough to
prevent it from being dispersed to the environment.
I also wish you would stop the attacks on people who are simply
discussing the technical limitations of your pet technology. Solar
cells have a role (I even own a solar powered calculator) but there is
little likelyhood that they will ever have much of an impact on the
world's consumption of thermal fuels like coal, oil, natural gas or
uranium.
Electric vehicles might even have a limited role, as long as you can
figure out a way around the basic energy density problem of storage
systems. As Thomas Edison (a man very much in favor of battery powered
cars) said long ago, "The best battery I can find is a lump of coal."
What he meant was that combustion energy sources have a basic chemical
advantage over batteries in terms of weight. A combustion energy source
only has to carry the carbon; the oxygen (which represents 75% of the
weight of the oxidation reaction that releases heat) can be sucked
in as needed. In contrast, a storage battery has to carry both
of whatever chemical reactants are used to release energy, thus making
the battery automatically heavier than an equivalent amount of
combustion fuel.
Physical means of storing energy (compressed air, spinning flywheels,
etc.) have so far proved not much better than chemical means.
There is one way around these limitations, however. If you find a
reaction that releases A LOT more energy per unit mass of reactants, you
might have a chance of equaling or bettering the energy density of
petroleum. When that reaction is found, then I will believe that
a better battery will be possible after much development. So far,
even that step has not been accomplished in the quest for a better
battery.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE
Subject: Re: Global Warming: Effect on Sea Level
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:29:11 -0600
Justin Lancaster wrote:
>> In case anybody doesn't want to dig through the referenced volumes, the
> current estimates are still in the neighborhood of perhaps 1/2 meter
> rise owing to thermal expansion and 1/2 meter rise owing to continental
> ice melt during the next century. An important uncertainty relates to
> whether or not greater precipitation at the poles might actually lead to
> net accretion of water there during this period.
>
> An important point made in the discussion above about whether or not to
> purchase seashore homes, is that coastal storms are what one should
> worry about. There is good reason to believe that a more energetic
> atmosphere and surface ocean will lead to more frequent and more
> energetic storms. The insurance industry has perhaps been feeling this
> reality during the last fifteen years of rapid warming.
Chapter 6 of Climate Change 1995 by the IPCC says the eidence from
modelling about increase in frequency and servity of storms is mixed,
so what you say is possible, but there is no strong reason right now
to believe it, at least if I understood what I read. On the other
hand, it is quite possible that the details of storm surges on low lying
land could change. For example, increased precipitation is one
consistent prediction of many models. I don't know enough about
meteorology to understand how this might work. Still whether or not
storms are more frequent or more severe, just a moderate increase in sea
level will certainly result in more damage even from storms at current
levels. My brother-in-law lives in a house about 3/4 of a mile from
the ocean on Martha's Vineyard, and he says even a small increase in sea
level will make a significant difference where he is.
> Storm surge will be a function of the specific off-shore morphology,
> i.e., the extent to which the ocean floor near the coast line interacts
> with (or impedes) tha ability of subsurface flow to return oceanward
> when pressure and wind "pile-up" water near the shore.
>
> If your house is near a rocky shore that plunges to depth rather
> quickly, and you are far enough up to allow large waves to break away
> from your porch, then you are likely to be OK at 2 or more meters above
> current sea level.
>
> j. lancaster
> environmental science and policy institute
> lexington, MA, USA
The above is very much to the point.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: why can't we MAKE ozone?
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:34:48 -0600
Friendly San wrote:
>
> I may be misinformed, but it's my understanding that an electrical spark
> creates the gas ozone. If that is true, why can't we make giant ozone
> generators to supplement problem areas in the ozone layer? Anyone know
> about this?
>
> --
> -----------------MR. FRIENDLY-------akafriendlysan-------------------
> He always stays near you, and steals in your mind,
> to lead you into a good situation.
> * HE'S YOUR BEST ALLY! *
> When you're happy he's always laughing.
> When you feel sad, he cheers me up.
I suggest you read Robert Parson's ozone FAQ which discusses this matter
in great detail.
In fact, we don't need ozone generators, we are already producing lots
of tropospheric ozone through pollution which is a serious problem.
Unfortunately, there is no way to transport it to the stratosphere where
the ozone layer is.
If you are contemplating large numbers of ozone generators floating
in the stratosphere, I suspect that the economics just don;t work out,
and they probably won't work anyway. Other more scientifically
justified proposals have been made to generate ozone in the stratosphere
or to affect the baolance between O_2 and O_3, but so far none has been
found plausible.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 15:45:02 GMT
Louis Schmittroth wrote:
>
> And, no I don't have any alternatives,...
Not surprising.
> and if we have to vote on who is the
> biggest criminal, I agree with Yuri that the Pope is worse than McCarthy.
Sloppy use of language seems to be inherent among certain philosophical
groups. Personally, I think Roman Catholicism does man a great
disservice, however, to claim the Pope is a criminal is sheer blather. You
may call him immoral, unethical, ignorant, anachronistic, or even evil, if
you wish. But criminality requires transgression of a law, which seems to
be missing in this case.
And no, you can't count "unwritten crimes against the planet".
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the
vexation of thinking."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Subject: GOODBY MIKE!
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:08:01 -1000
Mike Asher wrote:
>
> Jay Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
> > given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
> > habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem
>
> Incorrect, as I pointed out. Carrying capacity is the asymptotic value of
> the population model's defining equation. Most models will show a "hump"
> under certain boundary conditions, where population increases then declines
> before reaching the asymptote. The decline results from an inserted
> competition term; some models add other terms, which may include estimates
> as to "ecosystem damage". However, the definition remains unchanged.
Mike have just joined the rest in the doghouse with jw, charliew,
McCarthy, dlj. You are trying to tell us that ECOLOGISTS do
not know the definition ecology, but some politically-motivated
Usenet nitwit does.
You are no longer worthy of my time.
============================================================
"Investing in Natural Capital:
The Ecological Approach to Sustainability"
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
CARRYING CAPACITY REVISITED
Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which
it is dependent. However, because of our culturally variable
technology, different consumption patterns, and trade, a
simple territorially-bounded head-count cannot apply to human
beings. Human carrying capacity must be interpreted as the
maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that
can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing
the functional integrity and productivity of relevant
ecosystems wherever the latter may be. The corresponding
human population is a function of per capita rates of material
consumption and waste output or net productivity divided by
per capita demand (Rees 1990). This formulation is a simple
restatement of Hardin's (1991) "Third Law of Human Ecology":
(Total human impact on the ecosphere) =
(Population) x (Per capita impact).
Early versions of this law date from Ehrlich and Holdren who
also recognized that human impact is a product of population,
affluence (consumption), and technology: I = PAT (Ehrlich and
Holdren 1971; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). The important point
here is that a given rate of resource throughput can support
fewer people well or greater numbers at subsistence levels.
Now the inverse of traditional carrying capacity provides an
estimate of natural capital requirements in terms of
productive landscape. Rather than asking what population a
particular region can support sustainably, the question
becomes: How much productive land and water area in various
ecosystems is required to support the region's population
indefinitely at current consumption levels?
Our preliminary data for developed regions suggest that per
capita primary consumption of food, wood products, fuel, and
waste- processing capacity co-opts on a continuous basis up to
several hectares of productive ecosystem -- the exact amount
depends on the average levels of consumption (i.e., material
throughput). This average per capita "personal planetoid" can
be used to estimate the total area required to maintain any
given population. W call this aggregate area the relevant
community's total "ecological footprint' (see Figure 20.2) on
the earth (Rees 1992).
This approach reveals that the land "consumed" by urban
regions is typically at least an order of magnitude greater
than that contained within the usual political boundaries or
the associated built-up area. However brilliant its economic
star, every city is an entropic black hole drawing on the
concentrated material resources and low-entropy production of
a vast and scattered hinterland many times the size of the
city itself. Borrowing from Vitousek et al. (1986), we say
that high density settlements "appropriate" carrying capacity
from all over the globe, as well as from the past and the
future (Wackernagel 1991).
The Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia,
Canada, serves as an example. For simplicity's sake consider
the region's ecological use of forested and arable land for
domestic food, forest products, and fossil energy consumption
alone: assuming an average Canadian diet and current
management practices, 1.1 ha of land per capita is required
for food production, 0.5 ha for forest products, and 3.5 ha
would be required to produce the biomass energy (ethanol)
equivalent of current per capita fossil energy consumption.
(Alternatively, a comparable area of temperate forest is
required exclusively to assimilate current per capita C02
emissions (see "Calculating the Ecological Footprint").
Thus, to support just their food and fossil fuel consumption,
the region's 1.7 million people require, conservatively, 8.7
million ha of land in continuous production. The valley,
however, is only about 400,000 ha. Our regional population
therefore "imports" the productive capacity of at least 22
times as much land to support its consumer lifestyles as it
actually occupies (see Figure 20.3). At about 425 people/km2
the population density of the valley is comparable to that of
the Netherlands (442 people/km2) [p.p. 369-371]
Even with generally lower per capita consumption, European
countries live far beyond their ecological means. For
example, the Netherlands' population (see Figure 20,4)
consumes the output of at least 14 times as much productive
land as is contained within its own political boundaries
(approximately 110,000 km2 for food and forestry products and
360,00 km2 for energy)(basic data from WRI 1992).8 [p. 374]
PUBLISHED BY:
The International Society for Ecological Economics and
Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
