Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:31:29 GMT
"Ross C. K. Rock" wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> Patrick is taking my name in vain: the only transmutations I have
>> proposed are the routine two, the first nuclear, the second simply
>> physical: 1.) Let stuff cool off for a while in pools; then 2.) dilute
>> it with rock, cement, glass or whatever is useful to make it easy to
>> store.
>
>I'm not quite sure how you plan to dilute nuclear fuel bundles. Do
>you propose to remove the spent fuel from the metallic sheaths, or
>'melt' down the whole mess? I'm not trying to be adversarial...
>I'm really curious to know.
Not my specialty, but I understand that part of the present
reprocessing of rods consists of dissolving them -- ziconium, uranium,
all the little nasties, the whole shebang -- presumably in aqua regia,
or some such. So clearly getting it all into liquid form is no big
deal. At that point you could dilute it with anything you want --
cement, rock, seawater...
The experiments that have been done with melting it with silicaceous
frit to make a glass seem pretty appealing to me. You can run trains
over the stuff, drop it out of airplanes, whatever, and it doesn't get
any nastier than when a gravel truck goes off the road.
Cheers,
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:00:38 GMT
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>Again this is not true. Socialists have been aware of the necessity
>for signalling systems in the economy since the twenties -- and have
>invented all the equivalents which are used in such socialist
>economies as Sears Robuck, the US armed forces, US Steel, GM and so
>on.
I have a problem with using the word "socialist" with regard to the
entities you list above. Possibly I should insure you know my
definition of socialism: "a social system in which the means of
producing and distributing goods are owned collectively". Socialism
is then an economic system, one of several which is collectivist in
nature.
If you are talking about management problems encountered in a large
organization, or the solutions utilized, we may have something to talk
about, but I do not see that the, say customers or employees of Sears
or the US Army, for example, own the means of producing or
distribution. They also differ in that, if they disagree with
superiors, they can leave fairly readily if they desire (at least they
can when their enlistment is up, for soldiers).
I would disagree, in fact, with the idea that either the US Army or
Sears constitute an economy at all, certainly not in the meaning of
your phrase "in such socialist economies as Sears Roebuck", etc. In
the cases you mention, the range of economic activity by these
entities is simply too limited. Sears is essentially a retail
distributor of items manufactured by someone else. The US Army is a
minimal producer of anything, and usually hires private organizations
to move the massive amounts of food, clothing and other items
purchased from the private economy.
>The Soviet Union was not a disaster of existing socialism, Ronald
>Reagan's vain claim. It was the disaster of centralism, tyranny,
>price fixing, censorship, and the warfare state: anti-socialism five
>ways.
Possibly in some sense, you may say the USSR was not Socialist, but if
you simply use the standard criteria from the dictionary, as I quoted
above, the USSR certainly fits into the niche of owning the means of
production and distribution for society.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:08:33 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>: The book, a marvellous tale if only because of his story of his
>: marking off territory by pissing on rocks, wolf style, when he lived
>: in the wild to study them, exculpated wolves from attacks on caribou,
>: said that they lived on mice, basically, and that caribou bones were
>: only found around human settlements. All three of these are lies.
>:
>: It may or may not be the case that human over-hunting are a threat to
>: the caribou -- but this question has been obscured for the next year
>: or so, until Mowat's dishonesty works its way through the system and
>: through the public's consciousness. In the meantime, if there is harm
>: being done to the caribou, Mowat is the person responsible for it.
>
>Perhaps, then, you can offer a principled discussion of the scientific
>literature on ozone and the effect on it of CFCs.
Talk about changing the subject Bruce, WOW! I would have to believe
that you don't like that one.
I would suggest, if you wish to start such a discussion, you should do
so. I have to warn you though, that there was recently a long
discussion of that, maybe you could get some newbies interested. It
would be nice if you started a new thread to do so though, we have
gotten far enough off of this one already.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:38:13 +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:
> : > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : >
> : > [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
> : > : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
> : > : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
> : > : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
> : > : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
> : > : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
> : > : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
> : > : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
> : > : up as a rise in the cost of "fish",
> : > Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
> : > and should not show up in the CPI. If it does, it would be
> : > because the BLS made a mistake.
> [ deletions ]
> : How about
> : 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.
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)
> 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.
> I've corrected your 1996 value. You've calculated a 70% increase in
> _expenditures_ on fish, but this is not the same as an increase in
> price. The increase in expenditures mostly occurred because quantity
> increased. The _price_ only rose 2%.
Ah, the quantity in the above calculation actually
_decreased_ from 1995 to 1996, there 21 units
of "fish" sold in 1995, and 20 units in 1996.
That was a deliberate assumption - and a realistic
one. The mean retail cost of fish in this example
increases sharply because of value added at the retail
level, not because of a supply-demand response.
Since the basket or retail good used to calculate
consumer price indices includes specifically
processed, value added goods, not generally wholesale
raw materials, some of the variation in the index
must be due to this.
As it happens this actually happened with fish
sold in the US over the period where you noted
a CPI rise above inflation. They sold cod in both
1970 and 1995, but in 1995 the cod was more likely
to be frozen, breaded and ready to nuke.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 17:37:39 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) posted this .sig:
: >"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
: >statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
: >Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
: >being honest."
: > - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
: > "Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47
:
: I'm glad Harold has brought attention to this stream of
: environmentalist thought. It highlights the genuine contempt which
: many soi-disant environmentalists hold for the rest of us.
:
: Here in Canada there has been a recent scandal when Farley Mowat,
: boozer, happy-go-lucky, nationalist agitator, and general hail-fellow
: well-met, confessed to fiction in his supposedly factual book on
: wolves.
:
: The book, a marvellous tale if only because of his story of his
: marking off territory by pissing on rocks, wolf style, when he lived
: in the wild to study them, exculpated wolves from attacks on caribou,
: said that they lived on mice, basically, and that caribou bones were
: only found around human settlements. All three of these are lies.
:
: It may or may not be the case that human over-hunting are a threat to
: the caribou -- but this question has been obscured for the next year
: or so, until Mowat's dishonesty works its way through the system and
: through the public's consciousness. In the meantime, if there is harm
: being done to the caribou, Mowat is the person responsible for it.
Perhaps, then, you can offer a principled discussion of the scientific
literature on ozone and the effect on it of CFCs.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:07:11 GMT
Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote for all to see:
: >David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: >: Jay Hanson wrote:
: >
: >: >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
: >: >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
: >
: >: And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
: >: year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
: >: look pretty good for the future, don't they.
: >
: >World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving
: >on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
: I know I will hate myself for replying, but I feel a desire to note
: that, with less than 16% of the world, this means that more than 84%
: are getting sufficient food. This is in stark contrast to previous
: eras, when much larger portions of the population were continually
: starving.
How do you know this?
As the absolute number of people starving is now greater than ever in the
world, that means that the total amount of misery is greater than ever.
This is progress?
As the limits of ecosystems are now stressed more than ever -- this means
that the future for these starving people can only get worse.
Not to see the limits of our ecological existence -- it is madness that
can only bring the increasing misery and eventual collapse.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Subject: Re: Food production Was:(Re: Paul...)
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:09:51 +0000
antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:
> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
> >A very paradoxical but nevertheless real difficulty is this: the EU
> >produces far too much food, and to try to get rid of it they attempt to
> >sell it where it is most needed: Africa. In the attempt to make it
> >affordable, they dump it there at something like 30-40 percent of world
> >market prices. But... the effect of that dumping is to put domestic
> >farmers in those countries out of business and turn them into destitute
> >itinerants. Domestic production collapses and people not in naturally
> >fortunate areas such as northwestern Cameroon do starve and the poorest
> >of them cannot buy world food at any price. What to do? The IMF will
> >not let these countries push food production over cash crops because all
> >these countries owe external creditors a lot of money.
>
> FAIR trade would be a good start. Just about every economist in the
> world will tell you that it is totally predictable that the EU's
> totally irresponsible agricultural production and trade practices
> are screwing up the whole world's agricultural systems, with corresponding
> resource implications.
>
> To force the EU to cease and desist, the sheepishly ignorant and uninterested
> EU citizenry ought to force their own politicians to find less internationally
> destructive ways of mollycoddling a small rural population. If you read
> around a little you may even find that this is the very thing the IMF would
> recommend too.
May I hasten to note that while I live in an EU country
I am not an EU citizen, and the EU would appear not to
take much note of my opinion in these matters ;-)
However, from conversation I have some understanding of
why the Common Agricultural Policy is as it is - and it
is changing, slowly, with excess subsidised production
decreasing - but, there are two non-trade factors at
work here: there is the issue of security of food supply,
most of the EU countries have acute memories still
of the first half of the century and few would like to
be in a position of possible mass starvation should there
be future political upheaval or war, so they subsidise
local, inefficient producers, to have a local production
base for security; there is also the issue of land control,
historically if you allow rural regions to depopulate
you lose them, quaint, but historically true, also
representational systems tend to have a lag time relative
to demographic shift, if not an in-built over representation
of sparse urban areas (as does the US), hence there is
a political imperative to keep in existence a rural population
on most accessible land, by large direct subsidy if necessary.
This factor is explicit in most EU directives, even apparently
unrelated issues such as funding of astronomical research.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:55:12 +0000
Steinn Sigurdsson writes:
> 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:
> > : > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> > : > [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
> > : > : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
> > : > : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
> > : > : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
> > : > : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
> > : > : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
> > : > : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
> > : > : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
> > : > : up as a rise in the cost of "fish",
> > : > Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
> > : > and should not show up in the CPI. If it does, it would be
> > : > because the BLS made a mistake.
> > [ deletions ]
> > : How about
> > : 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)
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?
> 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,
indeed there is continued dispute over just how to
allow for the change in composition of the value of
goods weighed in your typical index.
> > I've corrected your 1996 value. You've calculated a 70% increase in
> > _expenditures_ on fish, but this is not the same as an increase in
> > price. The increase in expenditures mostly occurred because quantity
> > increased. The _price_ only rose 2%.
> Ah, the quantity in the above calculation actually
> _decreased_ from 1995 to 1996, there 21 units
> of "fish" sold in 1995, and 20 units in 1996.
> That was a deliberate assumption - and a realistic
> one. The mean retail cost of fish in this example
> increases sharply because of value added at the retail
> level, not because of a supply-demand response.
> Since the basket or retail good used to calculate
> consumer price indices includes specifically
> processed, value added goods, not generally wholesale
> raw materials, some of the variation in the index
> must be due to this.
> As it happens this actually happened with fish
> sold in the US over the period where you noted
> a CPI rise above inflation. They sold cod in both
> 1970 and 1995, but in 1995 the cod was more likely
> to be frozen, breaded and ready to nuke.
This point remains.
Subject: Re: Stone Age Economics - part two
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:20:41 GMT
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan) wrote for all to see:
>>Cuba was quite a prosperous island before Batista.
>OK, but I do not think that Castro was attracted by a "surplus...to
>expropriate", do you? And I suspect that Batista was not primarily
>motivated by the money either, but I do not know.
>>Russia was
>>quite prosperous before the tyrannies of the later Czars.
>And you think the Czars were attracted by the "surplus...to
>expropriate"? Or that the Communist tyrants later were attracted by
>the "surplus...to expropriate"?
>>North
>>Korea is merely an outpost for China, which was great several
>>millenia and has been tryannous ever since.
>And you think that the Communist tyrants of Korea were attracted by
>the "surplus...to expropriate"?
YES! The distinction between wealth and power is a false one. You
can extract neither wealth nor power from people who live at
subsistence. The czars, the communist tyrants, and Batista all
lived opulently luxurious lives from the labors of their
subjects, and weilded power as well.
The driving force of economics is that man seeks to satisfy his
desires with the least exertion. The more power you have, the
more results you get for a given amount of exertion. This is true
for all types of power, from muscular to political. Thus, the
desire for power is not an end desire, but a desire for the
ability to meet other desires.
Are all desires selfish, or wealth driven? Of course not. Castro
may be motivated by (in addition to his desire for luxury) a
desire for glory and/or a desire to see his utopian fantasy come
to fruition. He may also be motivated in the negative sense by a
fear of rivals, who would impugn his glory, alter his fantasy,
and even end his comfortable and, yes, powerful role as dictator.
But, were it not for the economic surplus, it would be simply
impossible for the people of Cuba to feed themselves and Castro's
bureaucracy at the same time. Castro would have no power over
their labors, for they would have no choice but to pursue their
survival. Thus, there must be some accumulation of wealth or some
productive capacity beyond subsistence to attract exploitation.
>>Uganda and Zaire I
>>don't know much about, but I suspect life was well above
>>subsistance. Cultures that barely progress above subsistence are
>>pretty well left alone, for what can you squeeze out of them?
>Power. That is what I said before.
What power? How does one squeeze power out of people who have no
resources to spare? Maybe they can serve you for a month or two
while they starve, but it is an understatement to say that they
would do so grudgingly.
>So far you have not even
>addressed your original comment, which was to the effect that wealth
>attracted tyrants. In every case, you gave no cause to believe that
>the tyrants were attracted by a "surplus...to expropriate".
There are plenty or peoples with no surplus capacity. They are
often exterminated or chased off their land (when the land itself
has a higher productive capacity), but they are not enslaved.
This is generally true of native Americans of both continents,
who were easy enough to capture and enslave, but who did not fare
well under exploitation. Thus, the perverse pleasure of weilding
power over them is not supplemented by an extraction of wealth,
and was therefore not sustained.
Any system that extracts power for the sake of doing so, without
extracting wealth as well, will be about as successful as
Jonestown. Even the Nazis were busy squirreling away gold and art
treasures for themselves, and they were the most power-mad
example I can recall.
>>>Stealing only a few pennies from everyone in a country
>>>usually is more than sufficient wealth for a tyrant. Everyone always
>>>has a surplus that the tyrant can exploit. The "kings" of primitive
>>>tribes on the shores of small islands, with populations of as few as
>>>20 or 30 people, were exploited.
>>You are correct here, except that systems of exploitation are
>>cumbersome, and therefore expensive. For the tyrant to get a few
>>pennies from each person, he must institute a system of
>>landlords, tax collectors, police, bankers, regulatory
>>bureaucrats, etc. Such a system is a substantial drain on a
>>marginal economy, and is likely to produce less wealth than it
>>consumes.
>Is the tyrant concerned with the wealth he must spend to acquire what
>he desires?
YES! If his subjects are incapable of producing that wealth, he
cannot spend it!
>I would be very surprised to learn that a tyrant is
>concerned about the economic burden his requirements place on society,
>that is part of the reason he is called a tyrant.
This is cynicism taken beyond the limits of reality. A tyrant who
does not care about the well-being of his subjects is as
ridiculous as a farmer who does not care about the well-being of
his oxen. Such a farmer will soon be pulling his own plow. The
only people who are abandoned by the successful tyrant are those
who make trouble and those who are either burdensome or
irrelevant to the production of wealth. (Thus there are many
tyrannies in oil-rich areas, as the extraction and exportation of
oil requires very little labor.)
>Do you have any examples of tyrants who were concerned about the high
>cost of their police and taxing functions?
Yes, especially were the economy generates little wealth. Where
much wealth is generated, the tyrant can be less concerned about
these questions. (Remember the original point, that wealth
attracts tyranny.)
>>There comes a point where there is enough
>>wealth that a tyrant can, without arousing outrage, take, as you
>>say, "a few pennies from each person" and thus enrich himself far
>>more efficiently than he could have by producing wealth.
>But, to quote you "I am hard-pressed to find a counter-example". When
>you find one, let me know.
I am boggled by the notion that you reject my deliniated
examples, while I hear no actual support for your own position.
How do you figure people want power for the sake of power, and
without regard to whether the people over whom the power is
weilded have a capacity to sustain the tyrant?
On the other hand, there might be a negative correlation beyond
some point. I am reminded of why the middle class is burgled
often, and the rich and poor burgled rarely. The poor have no
"ability to pay" the burgler, and the rich have ability to resist
paying. Thus, the burgler, the tax collector, the land monopolist
and other assorted tyrants target those with enough wealth and
power to be worth exploiting, but not enough to put up a serious
fight.
There is another angle that you might regard as close to your
contentions. It is relatively easy for an dictatorship to weild
power and extract wealth from a society that is primarily land
and natural-resource based. This is because land is essentially
common property anyhow, and monopolizing land, either as a
bureaucrat or an aristocrat, is an effective and efficient way to
garner rent as tribute. However, as a country industrializes, the
bureaucratic, or socialist, model of exploitation becomes highly
injurious to wealth production, for genuine capital (factories,
machines, etc.) is far less effectively used, maintained and
improved upon by subjects than by entrepreneurs who anticipate
benefitting from the fruits of their efforts.
In other words, if an economy's source of wealth is people doing
drudgery, such as planting crops with sticks and harvesting them
with hand scythes, a slave will do as good a job as a freeman.
But try getting slaves to do the complex functions required in an
industrial economy and you end up with a huge management problem.
Thus, in industrialized societies, the preferred method of
exploitation is to monopolize the land itself, charge rent, and
let the true capitalists and laborers raise the rent money
however they can.
>"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions. Trade loves
>moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.
>.... Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high
>idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their
>own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein. Hence it makes them
>inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
> ---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3,
> ch. 21 (1840).
I do like this quote. As an example, the Falklands war occurred
shortly after Britain stopped buying Argentinian beef.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (Humour!)
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:58:17 GMT
Will Stewart wrote:
>
> Of course, we have rooftops that are going to waste that can be used to
> power most residential and light commercial buildings.
>
Three minutes with pen and paper will show you that the roof area of a
two-story home is unsufficient to fill its power needs. A 40-story
skyscraper requires far more power, and has proportionally far less roof
area. Where do we put the rest of the collectors?
And please don't shift the argument. I'm not arguing that solar power is
infeasible in all cases. I'm arguing that it is not "zero emissions", as
claimed, that it has high health risks, due to its decentralized nature,
and that it is unsufficient to fill more than a small portion of our energy
needs.
> > These
> > vast collection areas must be kept free of dust,
>
> Rain removes dust, wherever dust is a problem.
>
> >grease,
>
> If you cook with grease, make sure you keep it away from the panels;
> otherwise, grease is not a problem.
>
> >snow,
>
> Not much snow in the desert where Solar Two is. Far to the north, snow
> is a frequent occurence, though the tilt of the panels tends to slide
> the snow off.
>
> > leaves,
>
> Most PV panels are not installed under trees.
>
> > and
> > other foreign material.
>
Perhaps you can explain why every large solar installation ever built has
required daily cleaning then, to operate at peak efficiency? Of course,
you don't have to keep the surfaces clean....but dirt and other matter
reduces the efficiency remarkably.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Anatole France
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:17:42 GMT
The December Scientific American has a brief note on plastic solar
cells (market name of the polymer: Lumeloid). In theory, it could
convert 75% of incident light into electricity (vs. 20 to 30% for
current cells). The manufacturer claims that it will drop the cost per
watt to 50 cents (vs. $3 to $4).
I suspect that, if the cost gets low enough, people will be happy to
put arrays on their roofs.
Cannot an argument be made that, if something is more expensive, it is
less safe in some economic sense? E.g., even if a Volvo is safer than
a Civic, if I must pay a premium for it, somehow I've lessened my
ability to increase my "safety" by other means. If I choose to put up
solar cells on my roof, because they are cheaper than
(nuclear-generated) outside electric power, is not that the market at
work, even in the sense of my safety (or well-being), or am I just being
ignorant of the risks? [I'm willing to grant that the risks of my
being on the roof are greater than the risks I incur by having nuclear
power available].
In another vein, the magazine has an article about the Columbian who
has tried to develop the Malaria vaccine SPf66. The two most recent
trials failed, and other researchers have not been able to duplicate
some of his claims. However, reminding me of a regular who posted
about Malaria, Mr. Patarroyo says, "I don't care. They cannot touch
me. It's their problem." :-)
snark
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:46:39 GMT
William Royea wrote:
>
> If solar panels were mounted on every rooftop of every buisness and
> home, there would be no need to use "vast collection areas" dedicated to
> energy collection. The cleaning for such systems could easily be
> accomplished by trained individuals- not Joe Handymans, thereby reducing
> this risk substantially.
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.
> 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.
>... 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.
You're not familiar with commercial power generation, are you? Power is
not "stored", it is generated on demand. Solar power requires storage for
the lengthy periods the sun is not shining. We don't have the technology
to efficiently and safely store such vast amounts of electricity now; every
proposal on the board is dangerous and prohibitively expensive.
The tremendous amount of material required, the ongoing costs for
maintenance and repair, and the difficulties and losses involved in storing
energy has forced most analysts to conclude that commercial solar power
generation is a net energy loser; such plants can never create as much
electricity as expended in their construction and maintenance. Which is
why-- despite several expensive, tax-payer funded pilot projects,
commercial solar power continues to be a myth.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Let's face it. We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO
nuclear power plants."
- spokesperson for GAO, the Government Accountability Project
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Apocalyptic Aardvark
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:32:43 -0600
yvind Seland wrote:
>
> In article <56guis$2d3@News2.Lakes.com>, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> > api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <56ecvi$tjh@news2.lakes.com>,
> > > gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> > >>nice try at being a spin doc but you failed. As this past season was
> > >>proof as the first huuricane of the season proved.Going back to the
> > >>beginning of the century there are only 3 other cases of a hurricane
> > >>hitting the mainland that early. But the fact of the matter is
> > >>hurricanes are not the only storms to be considered.Looking back over
> > >>the past year for this location(so. Minnesota) we had record cold and
> > >>hight temps last winter, july brought a record rainfall 8 inches in 24
> > >>hrs,record high and low temps in oct along with 2 torandos in Oct a
> > >>very highly unusal event.
> >
> > >Correlation does not equal causation. You must prove that increased CO2
> > >concentrations have led to this weather, rather than it just being a natural
> > >strange weather pattern. Strange weather patterns have occurred before there
> > >was this much fossil-fuel burning going on.
> >
> > one of the first observables predicted for global warming is an
> > increase in storms
>
> At least some newspaper say so.
>
> I can not find this in the IPCC report however. The IPCC report says actually:
>
> " Clearly there is little agreement between models on the changes in
> storminess that might ocur in a warmer world. Conclusions regarding storm
> events are obviously even more certain".
>
> And about tropical cyclones: "In conclusion it is not possible to say
> whether the frequency, area of occurence, mean intensity or maximum
> intensity of tropical cyclones will change"
>
> IPCC 1995 page 334
>
> Please do not argue with "might be" from the mass media.
>
> Oeyvind Seland
Interesting discussion. An observation: according to the fossil
record, this planet has seen much warmer mean temps in other geological
eras and is likely to see similar temps in the future. I wouldn't rule
out that weird weather lately is a fluke just on the fact that we've
only been recording weather for a hundred or two years now, and that's
hardly a basis for solid conjecture. Perhaps the last 500 years has
been a fluke, and now we're getting back to "normal".
I also wouldn't rule out that global warming due to human activity is
actually ocurring. But just because it's ocurring doesn't mean it's
doing irreparable harm, either. After all, we only have so much fossil
fuel left before it's just plain gone, and hopefully then we'll be using
water, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. which will virtually eliminate the
problem.
Best not to take a stance too firmly for either side on this issue,
IMHO, until we get more info. By that time it may be irrelevant anyway.
Aardvark
--
"I wish the guy that shot John Lennon had missed and
hit Yoko instead." -- Tom Bernard, KQRS Morning Show
Subject: Radiation in Chernobyl CAUSES CANCER AND MUTATIONS (Re: Global
From: asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova)
Date: 15 Nov 96 16:33:07 GMT
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Patrick Reid wrote:
> [Posted to sci.energy]
> asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova) wrote:
>
> >
> >Radiation causes cancer. And many other diseases. People in Chernobyl'
> >could tell you a lot about it.
>
> People (formerly) in Chernobyl can tell you a lot about unnecessary
> relocations. The death toll to the general public due to Chernobyl to
> date is 3.
Did you understand what I said? RADIATION CAUSES CANCER AND OTHER
DISEASES. Mortality is not all there is to it; think about *morbidity*.
Search MedLine for radiation. Search it for Chernobyl, for that matter.
991 results. Articles published in many countries, not just Russia or
Ukraine. Some quotes:
Radiation-induced cytogenetic markers detected 8 years after the accident
at the Chernobyl Atomic Electric Power Station...
Psychic disorders are not infrequent findings in children who survived
Chernobyl accident...
...thyroid hyperplasia consequent to environmental pollution due to
Chernobyl accident...
Recent analyses of children in Belarus and the Ukraine are the first to
document large numbers of excess thyroid cancer cases only 4 years after
exposure to radiation. In Connecticut (USA), a thyroid cancer increase of
a much smaller magnitude occurred in 1990-93, 4-7 years after the
Chernobyl accident, for both children and adults. Similar changes also
occurred in the states of Iowa and Utah, which like Connecticut were
exposed to low levels of radionuclides from Chernobyl fallout during May
and June of 1986...
An assessment is submitted of morbidity rates and physical development of
children aged under 14, residing in the territories being monitored after
the Chernobyl Power Plant accident. A high level of disharmony in physical
development of the children examined was recordable, as was an excess in
morbidity of both general and separate classes of disease entities among
the pediatric population having been victims of the Chernobyl accident, as
compared to that in relatively "clean" areas and in Ukraine as a whole...
Germline mutation at human minisatellite loci has been studied among
children born in heavily polluted areas of the Mogilev district of Belarus
after the Chernobyl accident and in a control population. The frequency of
mutation was found to be twice as high in the exposed families as in the
control group...
etc. etc. etc.
THOSE MUTATIONS HAVE UNPREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES.
How dumb and conceited do you have to be to compare it to people falling
off roofs. "We'll just have two or three big power plants, so people won't
need to worry about providing their own energy". "We'll just have one big
State Farm, so people won't need to worry about procuring food". "We'll
just have one State Production and Trade Council, so people won't need to
worry about managing their own businesses, producing lots of unnecessary
things". FATAL CONCEIT.
May the knowledge of those who have suffered through totalitarianism save
this country from it.
Ari Solovyova
Subject: Re: Energy Crisis in Kazakhstan: INFO AND ADVICE NEEDED!
From: jgordes@mail.snet.net
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:07:42 GMT
asolovyo@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ariadna A Solovyova) wrote:
>Hi,
>I'm a student from Kazakhstan, a former Soviet Union republic, whose
>residents now suffer from fuel shortages. Many of my friends in Almaty
>(the capital of Kazakhstan) have been cooking on fire for a few weeks.
>I've found some exciting info and plans for solar cookers and will send
>them to my friends; I will also travel there soon and deliver materials
>that are hard to obtain there. Almaty is one of the sunniest cities in the
>former SU, so solar energy has a great potential there.
>I need more information about all kinds of solar devices (especially those
>which could be used by apartment dwellers), as well as efficient (and,
>preferably, easy to construct) woodstoves. Also, any advice on what people
>could do to help themselves in this situation would be very welcome. I
>would be thankful for pointers to books, magazines, WWW sites, mailing
>lists, commercial sources, and especially plans and designs that could be
>used to construct needed devices.
>The worst problem there is cooking and water heating, since most people
>have gas stoves, and natural gas supplies have been cut off. However,
>electricity and central heating have recently been down several times as
>well. So if anyone knows where I could get portable generators that run on
>something else than natural gas (alcohol? kerosene?), portable electric
>stoves, or anything else of that sort, please contact me!
>If you represent a company that supplies any of those things, I could help
>you make business contacts with companies and US agencies in Almaty if you
>are interested.
>Thank you very much in advance!
>Ari Solovyova
Hello Ari,
For solar cooking information I suggest you contact Solar Cookers
International , 1724 Eleventh St. Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 444-5379
fax or (916) 444-6616 phone.
For plans on very efficient wood cook stoves, contact Volunteers in
Technical Assistance (VITA) 1815 Lynn St., Suite 200, P.O. Box 12438,
Arlington, VA 22209-8438. (703) 276-1800 phone. (703) 243-1865 fax.
Good luck
Regards,
Joel N. Gordes
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 15 Nov 1996 17:49:08 GMT
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
> ...I urge those who feel insulted at the
> thougth of dangerous solar power to seek out this work. In addition, one
> of Inhaber's harshest critics at the time, John Holdren, undertook a
> similar study of comparative risks of energy technologies as part of his
> response to Inhaber's publication. Interestingly, Holdren comes to the
> same conclusion as Inhaber: solar power incurs a higher risk than
nuclear.
> Both references are listed below.
I think the mental "blind spot" people have with respect to solar power is
the same one regarding the automobile. If some corporation attempted to
build a machine in downtown Chicago that blew up once a year, killing fifty
thousand civilians, it would never be tolerated. But killing the same
amount by ones and twos, all over the country, is accepted.
Author Michael Fumento sums it up pretty well, in these words he wrote
after a near-fatal accident at a California highway curve that had already
claimed several lives:
"I was told she would not live. She did, and has since recovered. But
less fortunate were two brothers who had some months earlier gone off the
cliff at the same spot... The US EPA has issued regulations with price
tags ranging from $6.9 million to $3.5 billions per theoretical life saved,
and California supplements these with the most costly and stringent
environmental regulations in the nation. Yet apparently the state thought
that a guard rail, which costs of all $1000 per 100 feet, including
installation, was too expensive to prevent further loss of life at what it
already knew to be literally a dead man's curve."
>
> 1. Herbert Inhaber, _Energy_Risk_Assessment_, Gordon and Breach, 1982.
>
> 2. John Holdren et al., "Health and Safety Impacts of Renewable,
Geothermal
> and Fission Energy," in Curtis Travis and Elizabeth Etnier, eds.,
> _Health_Risks_of_Energy_Technologies_, Westview Press, 1983.
>
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
