DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10247--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 7, 2018, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180936.jpeg[/center]
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> [quote][center]Winner at the festival for the Golden Kitty
🐈 award was a two-minute film called “Henri 2: Paw de
Deux.” [/center]
>
> [move]It is the “existential” tale about a black-and-white
French feline. Meet the Humphrey bogart of felines.[/move]
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Q34z5dCmC4M[/center]
>
> Other winning videos were, “Snooky and the Metronome,”
“Kittens Inspired by Kittens” and “Kittens Riding Vacuum.”
>
>
HTML http://www.care2.com/causes/internet-cat-video-film-festival-is-purr-fectly-successful.html
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 7, 2018, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> [quote]
>
> [center]Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind
Photosynthesis[/center]
>
> The future of clean green solar power may well hinge on
scientists being able to unravel the mysteries of
photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert
sunlight into electrochemical energy. To this end, researchers
with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of
California (UC), Berkeley have recorded the first observation
and characterization of a critical physical phenomenon behind
photosynthesis known as quantum entanglement.
>
> Previous experiments led by Graham Fleming, a physical chemist
holding joint appointments with Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley,
pointed to quantum mechanical effects as the key to the ability
of green plants, through photosynthesis, to almost
instantaneously transfer solar energy from molecules in light
harvesting complexes to molecules in electrochemical reaction
centers. Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have
identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum
effects. When two quantum-sized particles, for example a pair of
electrons, are "entangled," any change to one will be instantly
reflected in the other, no matter how far apart they might be.
Though physically separated, the two particles act as a single
entity.
>
>
[center]
HTML http://www.daviddarling.info/images/quantum_entanglement.gif[/center]
> "This is the first study to show that entanglement, perhaps
the most distinctive property of quantum mechanical systems, is
present across an entire light harvesting complex," says Mohan
Sarovar, a post-doctoral researcher under UC Berkeley chemistry
professor Birgitta Whaley at the Berkeley Center for Quantum
Information and Computation. "While there have been prior
investigations of entanglement in toy systems that were
motivated by biology, this is the first instance in which
entanglement has been examined and quantified in a real
biological system."
>
> The results of this study hold implications not only for the
development of artificial photosynthesis systems as a renewable
non-polluting source of electrical energy, but also for the
future development of quantum-based technologies in areas such
as computing -- a quantum computer could perform certain
operations thousands of times faster than any conventional
computer.
>
> "The lessons we're learning about the quantum aspects of light
harvesting in natural systems can be applied to the design of
artificial photosynthetic systems that are even better," Sarovar
says. "The organic structures in light harvesting complexes and
their synthetic mimics could also serve as useful components of
quantum computers or other quantum-enhanced devices, such as
wires for the transfer of information."
>
> What may prove to be this study's most significant revelation
is that contrary to the popular scientific notion that
entanglement is a fragile and exotic property, difficult to
engineer and maintain, the Berkeley researchers have
demonstrated that entanglement can exist and persist in the
chaotic chemical complexity of a biological system.
>
> "We present strong evidence for quantum entanglement in noisy
non-equilibrium systems at high temperatures by determining the
timescales and temperatures for which entanglement is observable
in a protein structure that is central to photosynthesis in
certain bacteria," Sarovar says.
>
> Sarovar is a co-author with Fleming and Whaley of a paper
describing this research that appears on-line in the journal
Nature Physics titled "Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic
light-harvesting complexes." Also co-authoring this paper was
Akihito Ishizaki in Fleming's research group.
>
> Green plants and certain bacteria are able to transfer the
energy harvested from sunlight through a network of light
harvesting pigment-protein complexes and into reaction centers
with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key -- the
transfer of the solar energy takes place so fast that little
energy is wasted as heat. In 2007, Fleming and his research
group reported the first direct evidence that this essentially
instantaneous energy transfer was made possible by a remarkably
long-lived, wavelike electronic quantum coherence.
>
HTML http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/29/gallery/quantum-324x205.jpg
> Using electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a
femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale,
Fleming and his group discovered the existence of "quantum
beating" signals, coherent electronic oscillations in both donor
and acceptor molecules. These oscillations are generated by the
excitation energy from captured solar photons, like the waves
formed when stones are tossed into a pond. The wavelike quality
of the oscillations enables them to simultaneously sample all
the potential energy transfer pathways in the photosynthetic
system and choose the most efficient. Subsequent studies by
Fleming and his group identified a closely packed
pigment-protein complex in the light harvesting portion of the
photosynthetic system as the source of coherent oscillations.
>
> "Our results suggested that correlated protein environments
surrounding pigment molecules (such as chlorophyll) preserve
quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes, allowing the
excitation energy to move coherently in space, which in turn
enables highly efficient energy harvesting and trapping in
photosynthesis," Fleming says.
>
> In this new study, a reliable model of light harvesting
dynamics developed by Ishizaki and Fleming was combined with the
quantum information research of Whaley and Sarovar to show that
quantum entanglement emerges as the quantum coherence in
photosynthesis systems evolves. The focus of their study was the
Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) photosynthetic light-harvesting
protein, a molecular complex found in green sulfur bacteria that
is considered a model system for studying photosynthetic energy
transfer because it consists of only seven pigment molecules
whose chemistry has been well characterized.
>
> "We found numerical evidence for the existence of entanglement
in the FMO complex that persisted over picosecond timescales,
essentially until the excitation energy was trapped by the
reaction center," Sarovar says.
>
> "This is remarkable in a biological or disordered system at
physiological temperatures, and illustrates that non-equilibrium
multipartite entanglement can exist for relatively long times,
even in highly decoherent environments."
>
> The research team also found that entanglement persisted
across distances of about 30 angstroms (one angstrom is the
diameter of a hydrogen atom), but this length-scale was viewed
as a product of the relatively small size of the FMO complex,
rather than a limitation of the effect itself.
>
> "We expect that long-lived, non-equilibrium entanglement will
also be present in larger light harvesting antenna complexes,
such as LH1 and LH2, and that in such larger light harvesting
complexes it may also be possible to create and support multiple
excitations in order to access a richer variety of entangled
states," says Sarovar.
>
>
> The research team was surprised to see that significant
entanglement persisted between molecules in the light harvesting
complex that were not strongly coupled (connected) through their
electronic and vibrational states. They were also surprised to
see how little impact temperature had on the degree of
entanglement.
>
> "In the field of quantum information, temperature is usually
considered very deleterious to quantum properties such as
entanglement," Sarovar says. "But in systems such as light
harvesting complexes, we see that entanglement can be relatively
immune to the effects of increased temperature."
>
> This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of
Energy's Office of Science, and in part by a grant from the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
>
--- End Quote ---
This is a two year old article but I bring to your attention as
an example of a real world biochemical process in plant life
that DOES NOT obey the laws of thermodynamics. Action at a
distance without energy transfer is the hallmark of quantum
entanglement.
HTML http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm
HTML http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm
[/quote]
#Post#: 10249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 7, 2018, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> MarK_BC,
>
> The gist of my argument is that 2 - 2 = 0 in thermodynamics.
The petroleum industry would never have gotten off the ground if
the "externalities" had been accounted for responsibly. They
weren't.They still aren't and it is quite literally killing
us.The solution to pollution is not dillution unless we live in
an infinitely pollutable biosphere.
>
> As to population carrying capacity, I think that "problem" is
solving itself by the amount of toxins that have been introduced
into the biosphere over the last 150 years or so. I also believe
that we do not need the level of energy use that the media
claims is essential.
>
> We can do with much less. We need to reduce our use and make
THAT use totally renewable energy products. Of course it won't
happen and there will be a huge die off but that's not because
there are no options. For example, you see the biofuel paradigm
as a "food or fuel" binary. That's a bill of goods the petroleum
industry has sold us. The ethanol from corn idiocy was a set up.
Lemna minor (Duckweed) grows about 8 times faster and does not
require petroleum pesticides or fertilizers. It grows in
stagnant water on unusable land (we've got a LOT of that and is
fertilized with animal feces). The corn ethanol boondoggle is
just one example of the "We have to have oil" bullshit we are
fed.
>
> Duckweed post
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/blasts-form-the-2012-to-2013-past-when-there-was-more-hope/msg10256/#msg10256
>
> To show how massively unnecessary our oil setup is in the USA,
Here are some facts from a scholarly book that has been peer
reviewed:
>
> Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp.
399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
> "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a
cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this
way we can partly understand e.g. the American military
expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first
Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion
projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to
obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the
$27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.
>
> In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings
heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on
the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil
fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from
the Middle East. So why have they not done so? Because, while
the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American
taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living
in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American
capitalists. "
>
> As for the scientists I rail about, corporations have
basically taken over "science" with all research geared towards
profit. That's par for the course you might say but the level of
bought and paid for mendacity in the service of fossil and
nuclear fuels is breathtaking.
>
> Here are some examples.
>
> Gas fracking corruption posts
>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/blasts-form-the-2012-to-2013-past-when-there-was-more-hope/msg10257/#msg10257
>
>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/blasts-form-the-2012-to-2013-past-when-there-was-more-hope/msg10258/#msg10258
>
> I've got to hit the hay now but I will continue this
discussion tomorrow. I agree that, in a sane society, we would
agree to reduce our energy use 90% NOW and also target about a
tenth of the present human population as the ideal and work
towards that goal together.
>
> It probably won't happen but it doesn't mean we shouldn't
holler from the rooftops how this crap got started with
Rockefeller so that when, or if, humanity recovers from the
coming environmental and civilizational collapse, the survivors
will not let the greedy idiots play their stupid polluting power
games again. Talk to you tomorrow. 😎
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10250--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 7, 2018, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> Mark_BC,
>
> Carrying capacity is a function of carbon footprint in humans
(unlike other non tool making species). The issue of resource
depletion is not relative to our physical biomass.
>
> This is an excerpt from the following linked article
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg51/#msg51<br
/>I wrote that addresses the population issue.
>
> Mankind got into trouble with the biosphere when he got
carried away with his tool making. We've discussed this here at
length. To a degree, we appear to be an evolutionary dead end
because we quite literally cannot stop (industrially, not
physically speaking) "shitting" where we "eat". The biomass of
humans is smaller than that of all the ant species on the Earth
yet they don't have a carbon footprint problem. We have a
serious carbon footprint problem coupled with a lot of biosphere
poisoning. The media love to remind us of this. But here is
where the "S H I T where you eat" metaphor breaks down. Carbon
footprint is about poison, not feces.
>
> Seven billion humans could quite conceivably make excellent
use of their humanure to eliminate the need for chemical
fertilizers and much of the wasted water used in sewage
treatment. It 's a very convenient dodge to claim the solution
to our problem is to reduce the population. The false claim is
made that then all those cars and trucks wouldn't ruin the
planet and the biosphere could have a chance. That is a
"solution" that only solves about 20% of the pollution problem
and leaves the real heavyweights (about 80% of the pollution),
industry and military operated of, by and for the 1% elite, out.
>
> That is where the major carbon footprint is. For those who are
shaking their heads, go look at those U.N. stats on how many
people out there are living on 2 dollars a day and tell me THEY
are the problem. They aren't, no matter what Bill Gates says.
The combined feces of all the ants and every other life form out
there, far, far exceeds how much we defecate. As RE, myself and
many others here have correctly pointed out, the people at the
top refuse to accept responsibility for their horrendous attack
on the biosphere and are trying to shift the blame on the rest
of us.
>
> Those of us little piggies in the USA and Europe are the
favorite whipping BOYS of those who say we 55k or less (median
income in the USA at present) share almost as much as the 1% in
the pollution blame. They hasten to add that depopulation,
especially in the piggy countries like ours, is rational. I
would support it if it was rational but it is irrational because
it fails to deal with, and make an example of, the worst
offenders FIRST.
>
> People will not give up their pickup trucks until Warren
Buffett gives up his jets and multiple houses. The fact that a
few of us have reduced our carbon footprint voluntarily as an
act of conscience does not mean that most aren't still Bernays
brainwashed.
>
> What we need is a detailed map like this one of UK for the
USA:
>
>
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070718192758.png[/center]
>
> [quote]Experian have found a direct link between wealth and
willingness to embrace a green agenda; those most concerned
about climate change tend to live in the wealthiest parts of the
country.
>
> Poorer and greener
> But here's the rub. The company has also found that the
richest constituencies... are also the most polluting.2
>
--- End Quote ---
And that's just the homes. Try adding the carbon footprint
piggery these rich have added to their homes with stock
portfolios, ownership of retail space, factories, ships, office
buildings, jets, etc.The 55K or less crowd have none of these
things. At any rate wages don't even begin to tell the real
carbon footprint piggery story; the real story is in who owns
what. More on this later.
Here's a breakdown of carbon footprint by income decile in
Sweden, a country with far less extremes in wealth dstribution
than the USA. Notice that the top decile have nearly 6 times the
carbon footprint of the lower decile. 3
[smg id=423]
--- Quote ---
> The figure illustrates three types of emissions presented by
adult equivalents. The direct emissions come from the
household’s consumption (the private consumption) of fuel and
heating. The indirect emissions come from the production of
goods and services in the Swedish private consumption.
International indirect emissions come from the production of
goods and services consumed in Swedish households, before being
imported. All three types of emissions above sum up to the total
emissions from private consumption in Sweden.3[sup]
>
--- End Quote ---
In the USA, the per capita CO2 emissions of about 21 metric
tonnes is VERY misleading. (This data is about 5 years ol and.
as of 2012, is much lower) This paper studies the differences in
emissions from state to state without addressing income levels.
--- Quote ---
> If U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were equal
to those of its most populous state, California, global CO2
emissions would fall by 8 percent. If, instead, U.S. per capita
emissions equaled those of Texas, the state with the
second-largest population, global emissions would increase by 7
percent.
> What makes Californians’ emissions so different from those of
Texans, and from U.S. average emissions? And are the factors
that explain these differences amenable to replication as policy
solutions?[sup]4
--- End Quote ---
If you live in any one of the following states (or D.C), your
per capita CO2 emissions are less than 10 metric tonnes:
NY, DC, OR, CA, RI, WA, VT, NH, AZ, CT. In Vermont, direct
residential of about 3 tons is an average. Just one mansion here
can equal 4 or five 2,000 sq. ft. houses and the small homes
like mine with less than 1,000 sq. ft. are much lower. People
like myself, and there are lots of them here, are probably not
running a carbon footprint above 3 metric tons due, in addition
to having less house to heat, to driving less than 2,000 miles a
year. But what is published is the national 21 metric tons. NY's
per capita footprint appears the lowest in the nation at around
7. That's obviously not taking into account the Wall Street
Banks and investors in NY that own stock in retail space and
just about every other high carbon footprint venture in the USA
including weapons contractors. I'll wager NY's would be double
AK's 34, the state with maximum per capita footprint, if the
real estate throughout the country that the banks owned (Bernie
Sanders said it was 60% of the country's wealth) was figured in.
Since the study just looks at homes and not the money the rich
spend to "green up" their homes with geothermal (remember Bush's
ranch?) or PV while they own stock in and support weapons
contractors and dirty industries elsewhere, it is expected that
the study would come up with this gem:
--- Quote ---
> The lack of correlation between income per capita and
transportation and electricity emission per capita demonstrates
that, at least among states of the U.S., there is no rigid
relationship between affluence and emissions.10
> Similar incomes can be associated with very different levels
of emissions. It is possible — as evidenced by the contrast
between California and Texas — to enjoy the typical American
lifestyle with per capita emissions that are widely divergent
from the U.S. mean.4
--- End Quote ---
The above statement is an excellent example of scientific
blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone
of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of
all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count
boats, cars, airplanes, etc. They do, however, provide a
sensible explanation of why states like Vermont keep their
carbon footprint relatively low:
--- Quote ---
> Information about policies that have succeeded in reducing
emissions in some states should be circulated to the rest of the
country. How have some states managed to reduce their emissions
well below the national average? In broad strokes, states with
low per capita emissions:
> " Drive less per person and have, on average, better fuel
economy;
> " Use less electricity per person in their homes;
> " Have higher gasoline and electricity prices;
> " Rely more on public transportation; and
> " Use less oil for heating and less coal for electricity
generation.
> What does our analysis say about the difference between per
capita emissions in California and Texas? Transportation
emissions are almost one and a half times as great in Texas as
in California.4
>
>
--- End Quote ---
WHY don't these carbon footprint researchers look at this kind
of data:
--- Quote ---
> FAA statistics show the number of U.S. business jet flights
grew 11 percent in 2010, after plunging 20 percent in 2009. And
providers of private jet services are expanding: In March 2011,
NetJets (owned by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway) placed a
$2.8 billion order for 50 new Global business jets from
Bombardier, with options for 70 more; last fall, it ordered up
to 125 Phenom 300s from Embraer—and it bought Marquis Jet, a
marketer of private jet cards. Also in March, CitationAir by
Cessna added six 604-mph Citation Xs—which it calls the fastest
business jet in the sky—to its fleet of 81 jets, targeting “busy
executives and business travelers who often need to be in
multiple cities within a compressed timeframe,” a spokesman
says. XOJET has added to its fleet as well and has hired 45 new
pilots.5
>
--- End Quote ---
Does anybody want to take a stab at what umpteen executive jets
used EXCLUSIVELY by the 1% do to the USA carbon footprint? I
know a little something about airplanes. I never flew a jet for
hire but I flew Piper Navajos for a year or so. Each engine used
18 gallons per HOUR. Now when people start talking about all
those J6P pickup trucks out there while ignoring executive jets,
I sigh. The carbon footprint of those jets is massive.
--- Quote ---
> How much greater are the emissions from executive jets? I am
indebted to HalogenGuides Jets, "the insider's guide to private
aviation", for doing the stats.
> They reviewed 10 popular private jets using emissions stats
provided by TerraPass, the offset company used by Chief
Executive Air. The planes ranged from the Gulfstream 400, which
burns up 32l of fuel a minute and can carry up to 19 passengers,
to the Learjet 40XR, which burns more than 13l a minute to carry
a maximum of five passengers.
> HeliumReport converts this fuel burn into carbon dioxide
emissions per hour. If we assume the plane is fully loaded with
passengers, they mostly come in at between 200-300kg of carbon
dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour. But of
course, the purpose of having your own jet is that you are not
stuck with silly cost-cutting exercises like filling every seat
on the plane.
> I know of no analysis of how full private jets normally fly,
but let's assume they are mostly half full. That gives emissions
per passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide. That's about
half a tonne.
> How does that compare with a regular commercial flight? For
one from London to Paris, which is roughly an hour, TerraPass
reckons 59kg per passenger per hour, or little more more than a
10th as much as flying your own, half full, Learjet.
> If you are interested in carbon emissions, these numbers are
scary. An hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon
dioxide than most African do in a whole year.6
>
--- End Quote ---
The African CO2 footprint referred to is about one metric ton
but let's compare it with our "rich" Americans making anywhere
from 55k a year on down that only see executive jets in movies.
In 20 hours of of flying, an afterthought for the jet set 1% of
the USA, they use up one yearly quota of J6P's "greedy
irresponsible pig" footprint. Now count the executive jets and
count the total hours they fly each year and you will absolutely
gasp at the carbon footprint the 1% is happily spewing into our
biosphere. There are over 10,000 private jets in the USA as of
2008.
--- Quote ---
> How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the
planet, and costing you money.7
>
--- End Quote ---
And this is JUST THE EXECUTIVE JETS part of their piggery!
And Buffett thinks it's A-F*CKING-OKAY to add more.
China's per capita carbon footprint, in the meantime, has become
greater than that of several U.S. states, including Vermont.
--- Quote ---
> The latest report shows that in 2011 China's per capita
emissions increased 9%, rising to 7.2 metric tons per person. 8
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I am certain, as is the case in the USA, that the Chinese 1%'s
carbon footprint is orders of magnitude above the Chinese
version of our "J6P". Those who love to point at J6P piggery
in the USA should drop that broad brush and start looking at per
capita carbon footprint and, when available, decile breakdown of
that per capita carbon footprint. Please observe that the per
capita carbon footprint in the USA has been going steadily down
over the last decade (as of 2012, it is down to 17.3 metric tons
9) and that there are 11 countries with a higher per capita
carbon footprint than the USA.9 USA highlighted in yellow.
Click here for a table closeup:
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita<br
/>
J6P makes a real convenient whipping boy but that does not
reflect the facts on the ground even before you account for 1%
piggery. What matters is not data points like how much retail
space there is in the USA (a huge amount is now empty anyway
since 2008) but who OWNS that retail space and all the other
large carbon footprint piggery. The wealth breakdown in the USA
(as of 2007 - it's even more concentrated at the top now
according to senator Bernie Sanders) shows that 1% own 42.7%,
the next 19% own 53.7% and the BOTTOM 80% own 7%.10 I am using
the financial wealth stats rather than the "net" worth stats
because that reflects the sad reality that the 15% attributed to
the bottom 80% is now about 7% and the "net" worth of the top
20% matches 2007 financial wealth percentages (The top 20%, but
mostly the top 0.5%, have exponentially increased their
ownership of everything in the USA since the Greater Depression
began in 2007).
The last time I checked, when you OWN something, you are
responsible for it's carbon footprint. The fact that the
predatory capitalist "drug pushers" are out there pushing the
consumerist "drug" does not justify blaming the addicts. The
addicts must be treated but the priority is to get the pushers
off the street. Every addict can go cold turkey and the pushers
will adjust by giving the "drug" away really cheap until they
hook a new set of addicts.
Focusing on the addicts while giving lip service to the evils of
the 1% to the point that the addicts are given a 40/60% (99%
carbon footprint vs 1% carbon footprint) responsibility ratio in
biosphere degradation when it is more like a 20/80% ratio is
just plain wrong and doomed to failure. Of course the 1% love
this kind of "blame the victim" illogic.
[/quote]
#Post#: 10256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 8, 2018, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> [center]ALL ABOUT DUCKWEED[/center]
>
HTML http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/undergrad/curricula/img/full-size/bae.jpg
>
> Snippet 1:
> [quote]Researchers at North Carolina State University have
found that a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal
waste at industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the
answer for the global energy crisis. Their research shows that
growing duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times
more starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay
Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could
be "faster and cheaper than from corn," ]says fellow researcher
Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.
>
> "We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater
treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from
duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same
facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://api.ning.com/files/zu7veTWCiUphozWu-IO9ZbJXMYd3Zix2TTwvZFXRrmmXzPNF*WkIZ2EX19tauGJnrUnAwWGH7Pdzayddttajrpc7rnn9*Jr-/20120505_0806.png
[/center]
A LOT of hogs are raised in the USA and many other countries as
well. Do the math on the win-win situation of vastly increased
ethanol production from duckweed while simultaneously stopping
nitrogenous and fecal coliform waste which contaminates water
and contributes to ocean dead zones. And remember that duckweed
isn't particular; it can use ANY animal feces as fertilizer.
[center]
HTML http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960852412003343-gr2.jpg[/center]
[center]High nutrient removal rate from swine wastes and protein
biomass production by full-scale duckweed ponds [/center]
HTML http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412003343]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412003343
NOTE: Don't be confused by the above term "nutrient" in the
Sciencedirect article; they are talking about algae "nutrients"
from animal waste that cause algal bloom and ocean dead zones
from de-oxygenation. Feces causes algae to grow a LOT. In this
case it is a bad thing and duckweed prevents it.
Duckweed is the smallest flowering plant known to man. Being
aquatic, it uses most of the solar energy gained from
photosynthesis to grow its buoyant fleshy leaves, avoiding the
energy intensive requirements of slow growing woody root
systems. This ultra-efficient use of energy is the main reason
it grows so fast.
Note: Unlike GM plants tinkered with to grow fast or forced to
do so with chemical fertilzers, Lemna minor (duckweed)
sacrifices nothing in it's nutrient value for animals (it is
edible and nutritious for humans too - In a world environmental
collapse this humble angiosperm may be the key to preserving
life, health and energy for millions of humans).
--- Quote ---
> Global pork production in 2012 is revised upward 924000 tons
from the last forecast to. 104.4 million tons.
>
HTML http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf
--- End Quote ---
Snippet 2:
--- Quote ---
> The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be
built on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so
efficient it generates water clean enough for re-use. The
technology can utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from
livestock production to municipal wastewater.
--- End Quote ---
Snippet 3:
--- Quote ---
> Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly,
economically viable feedstock for ethanol."
>
> [size=12pt]"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops
that could be discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but
duckweed could be the first of the new, 21st century crops.
>
> In the spirit of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts
into a major crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed
into a new industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to
alternative fuel production."[/size]
--- End Quote ---
Source:
HTML http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605
[center]Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:[/center]
Snippet 1:
--- Quote ---
> It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24
hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of
duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth
of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.
>
> "It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the
undoing of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much
energy removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet
you haven't made any energy."
> Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times
bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested
with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.
>
> In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another
type of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White
City and other places around the country.
>
> "Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that
grows faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site,
because shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a
fast-growing plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then
create an artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."
>
> The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where
Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes,
ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can
supply energy for one home to a commercial-size,
60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a
Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside
the dome and runs silently.
>
> Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install
the largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two
years.
>
> "You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents
per kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens
said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power,
and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant."
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html
HTML http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html
While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or
nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers
on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies
and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3
cents per kwh is bonafide with duckweed. Nuclear fuel EROI of
10.0 and coal EROI of 80.0 are corporate pseudo-scientific
Procrustean Bed lies ( See this article
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/blasts-form-the-2012-to-2013-past-when-there-was-more-hope/msg10213/#msg10213).<br
/>
Even if ethanol produced from duckweed is only in the wind EROI
range of 18, it is still a far better alternative than any
fossil fuel planetary poison. Furthermore, transportation costs
would be next to nothing as well because duckweed infrastructure
would be decentralized and local. Renewable energy produced this
way also provides jobs for the community.
In addition, duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for
tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces (after a low tech
drying process).
sources:
HTML http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf
HTML http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater
Duckweed has great potential!
[center]
HTML http://duckweedgardening.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/screen-of-drying-duckweed.jpg[/center]
[center]Drying duckweed on a screen [/center]
[center]
HTML https://duckweedgardening.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/dirty-bucket-of-duckweed_cr.jpg<br
/>[/center]
[center]Duckweed is easy to grow. Just add water and poop.
[/center]
What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind,
photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never
actually replace fossil fuels as number one?
Snippet 1:
--- Quote ---
> 4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil
fuels
> Last year was the first time global investments in renewable
energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels.
>
> The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250
billion.
>
> The United States is currently leading in corporate R&D and
venture capital investments in clean energy globally, and last
year retook the top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent
increase to $55.9 billion.
--- End Quote ---
Snippet 2:
--- Quote ---
> 6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean
energy
> To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion
(adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from
1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just
$5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).
>
> Renewable energy investments should be put in proper
historical perspective. According to the Energy Information
Agency, “focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the
imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many
years across all energy fuels and technologies.”
>
> The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to
renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas
industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what
would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies
for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By
contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth
that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”
--- End Quote ---
Snippet 3:
--- Quote ---
> Here are the top six things you really need to know:
>
> 1) Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy
>
> 2) Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil
fuels
>
> 3) Clean energy improves grid reliability
>
> 4) Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil
fuels
>
> 5) Investments in clean energy are cost effective
>
> 6) Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean
energy
--- End Quote ---
Source:
HTML http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750]http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750
Given all these real world facts about the main energy
investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from
renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the
environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the
prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that
we-the-people will benefit from, isn't it folly to cling to the
concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in
the energy markets?
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/blasts-form-the-2012-to-2013-past-when-there-was-more-hope/msg10213/#msg10213
[/quote]
#Post#: 10257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 8, 2018, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> Fun with mendacity for money through the fossil fuel
corruption of scientists for the purpose of producing gamed
(e.g. The Oil Drum published EROI studies) "scientific" studies
that make fossil fuel extraction techniques look cost effective
and environmentally benign. >:(
>
>
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080718172704.jpeg[/center]
> [quote]Smelling a leak: Is the natural gas industry buying
academics? [b]
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Last week, the University of Texas provost announced he would
reexamine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe
for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed
hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas
developer. It’s the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle over
the basic facts of fracking in America.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://grist.org/natural-gas/smelling-a-leak-is-the-natural-gas-industry-buying-academics/
HTML http://grist.org/natural-gas/smelling-a-leak-is-the-natural-gas-industry-buying-academics/
One comment from a wide awake Texan:
--- Quote ---
>
> [b]Kim Triolo Feil
>
> Regardless of the academia studies.....I'm not a rocket
scientist and speak from experience.
> I live in Arlington TX - home to 55 urban drilling padsites in
a 99 sq mile area...these are my concerns besides the water
waste, disposal issues, and the related seismic events.
>
> The industry has a failure of emission control technologies
and accident prevention layered protocols to prevent ....
>
> 1) drilling hazards like drilling mud that "dries and flys
into the air", Bentonite's MSDS says it is toxic to the lungs
>
> 2) fracking silicia dust blowing off the sites (silicosis is a
permanant disease)
>
> 3) flowback emissions they try to call "steam" but has
hydrocarbons than can and HAS killed a worker last January-even
Green Completion equipment is late to be deployed and exposes us
to "top flowback" water vapors
>
> 4) diesel emissions in neighborhoods during all phases of the
life cycle of the wells (diesel has benzene in it and is a
carcinogen).
>
> 5) accidents that should be a zero tolerance in urban areas
and the acknowledgement that the build out being so big that
aggregate emission events and spills are not an "acceptable
risk"
>
> 6) methane leaks that speed up climate change
>
> 7) piping that is not earthquake & leak proof over the test of
time
--- End Quote ---
Gas fracking is an obscenity:
[center]
HTML http://player.vimeo.com/video/44367635[/center]
[/quote]
#Post#: 10258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 8, 2018, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> Golden Oxen,
> Yes they were (ARE) great at brainwashing. The same outfit
(Hill & Knowlton) is doing the same kind of brainwashing for
fracking. They learned how to push all the amygdala reptile
brain buttons real well from Freud's nephew, Bernays.
>
> I used to watch the Ed Sullivan show when I was a kid. I was
about 11 when I saw Elvis sing Hound Dog and Blue Suede Shoes.
My old man got really bent out of shape when Elvis was doing his
thing with his knees. ;D
>
> Anyway, the commercials were mostly Tide (boring) and Newport
cigarette commercials. I can still see the star trek type symbol
they had (long before star trek) and the dancers. All that talk
about menthol and fresh air stuck with me so well that when I
began to smoke at age 19, that's the brand of cancer stick
(yeah, we called them that) I chose. I hope that the public gets
it about fracking sooner than we did about smokes.
>
> As the video from the gasland producer says, those wells have
to stop biogenic (as opposed to the thermogenic gas they
actually drill for) from migrating up a the concrete pipe
casings FOREVER. Like the lying bastards from tobacco companies
had the hard data and studies showing smokes cause cancer, the
gas fracking pigs have the hard data and scientific studies that
the concrete pipe casings outside the steel pipe ALWAYS crack
and allow biogenic gas migration. That's why I got so p i s s e
d at Stoneleigh (Nicole Foss) for blithely ignoring this horror.
>
> Anyone who has a voice in the fossil fuel community and is not
using it to try to stop this evil is complicit in grievously
harming the biosphere and many humans as well. Once the aquifer
gets poisoned, some bottled water corporation gets an instant
boost in profits. These predatory capitalist morons don't get
the fact that the entire flora and fauna is at risk in these
places the aquifers get poisoned.
>
> I really, really suspect these assholes are doing a backdoor
"blue water" scarcity push. Yeah, I think they are DELIBERATELY
trying to poison aquifers. That is the reason they are so
adamant about trying to buy scientists and their studies. They
deserve to be strung up from those God Damned fracking drill
towers.
>
> I finally quit smoking when I had the pacemaker implanted in
2007. Nothing like a little heart trouble to clear the mind...
>
> Maybe when some friend of Nicole that lives near a fracking
well gets breast cancer, her mind will clear as well.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Golden Oxen link ---
>
> Quote Agelbet "All that talk about menthol and fresh air
stuck with me so well that when I began to smoke at age 19,
that's the brand of cancer stick (yeah, we called them that) I
chose."
>
> I was one of the smart guys that was too smart to get cancer.
I smoked Kents with the micronite filter. Micronite being a
fancy name for asbestos. Those friggin pig men are really
something aren't they. I guess we are lucky to still be alive
Agelbert after that foolish behavior.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 8, 2018, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> [center]Geothermal heat pumps are an example of passive
geothermal power.[/center]
>
> Just look at the fuel oil and natural gas alone that we would
NOT USE if we had geothermal heat pumps in all US homes. Then
remember that many homes are cooled by electricity as well as
some heated by it and you have a MASSIVE (at least 50%) energy
reduction just from switching to geothermal heat pumps. Remember
that just a short distance below the frost line all over the US
the temperature is about 54o year round.
>
>
[center]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_household_energy_usage.png[/center]
>
[center]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States[/center]
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/y_ZGBhy48YI[/center]
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10261--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 8, 2018, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: TAE (The Automatic Earth web site is the home of
fracked gas cheerleader "energy expert" Nicole Foss 🦖)
[center]Waste Based Society: Solutions and Alternatives[/center]
Published June 12, 2012
--- Quote ---
> Are there viable solutions and alternatives to the Energy
intensive Waste Based Society we currently live in, which do not
entail a return to Paleolithic levels of technology? Diner and
TAE Commentariat member A. G. Gelbert outlines a myriad of
technologies which might be employed to maintain a higher
technological base for society.
>
> RE
--- End Quote ---
[center]Solutions and Alternatives to the Waste Based
Society[/center]
by A. G. Gelbert
We are cursed with a rather effective propaganda machine that
defends the status quo and works mightily to provide allegedly
iron clad arguments exposing our desperate dependence on fossil
fuels and the enormous debt we owe to them for our ‘wonderful
civilization’. The media has cleverly weaved fact and fiction to
present plausible arguments against the practicality of going
cold turkey on fossil fuels and 100% on renewables.
Not one word about the fact that fossil fuels are easy to meter
and conveniently provide a constant revenue stream for the rich
along with governmental control of a populace that simply cannot
move or function without daily use of fossil fuels ever seems to
be mentioned. Not one word about how renewables cannot be
metered or taxed easily and how that feature gives everyone a
large degree of independence aand flexibility in disaster
situations to help themselves or a less fortunate neighbor is
mentioned.
On the other hand, the continuous and vociferous denial of the
link between fossil fuels and environmental problems, regardless
of scientific concensus on this very real link, never seems to
go away either. The actual history of the industrial revolution
involving some very brutal measures to coerce humans to abandon
horses, as only one of many coercive measures, for tranportation
and farming are always ignored and replaced with a stream of
pejorative comments about horse dung in big cities. People did
not want to get rid of their horses!
I am not simply talking about city ordinances and fines
targeting horses. Right around 1865 a big push began to sell
farm machinery. Amazingly, a huge horse plague hit the U.S. that
year that killed a massive amount of horses. No explanation
beyond “Civil War stress” blarney was ever given. These horses
were not just city horses in population centers but out in the
country as well.
The move to horseless carriages began on the farm with steam
power and hydrocarbon lubricants. The automobile came later
along with the bone cancer. Bone cancer from the original
automoblie fuel, benzene, is seldom mentioned by the media and
apparently is considered no big deal in comparison to horseshit
odor. Moving on to the early 20th century, Rockefeller has a
waste product in his refinery cracking towers (after separating
all those great heavy and light lubricants) called gasolene and
he talks Henry Ford into modifying the carburators to run on it.
[center]
HTML http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cars/lutzmann.jpg[/center]
Of course the ‘minor’ problem with benzene fuel may have helped
make the switch. There were electric cars on the road at the
time. Cleveland had wind generators creating electricity at that
time! You’ll never guess what happened to them and the electric
trolleys all over many towns in the USA. So, enough of that.
Everyone here knows how predatory capitalism attempts to game
the system to achieve price control and a monopoly. Once much
more efficient and sustainable technologies are shoved aside by
hook or by crook, the distorted and mendacious meme that our
current technology is the result of friendly capitalist
competition in the ‘free market’ is pushed.
Predation occurs followed by propaganda versions of history.
That is the real history of the industrial revolution in regard
to our choices of energy production. Renewables got squeezed
out, not because they couldn’t compete favorably, but because
the pollution and health costs of fossil fuels got
‘externalized’. Along the way, the independence of the mostly
agrarian American in energy production and use was crushed.
A love afffair with the car was fostered to the point that in
the late 1920’s more Americans had cars than flush toilets. Of
course they were better off, ecologically speaking, without
flush toilets, but the point is the job of selling Americans on
fossil fuels was a done deal by that time.
So please remember that nobody was doing us any favors, like the
media wants to claim; they were selling us something in order to
concentrate wealth and power in a few hands. They were using us
as a cash cow to the point of introducing planned obsolecence,
rampant consumerism to keep the factories going and
simultaneously thwarting moves to sustainability like Henry
Ford’s plan to make cars out of hemp plastic in the early1940s.
We like new stuff and are always looking for the latest model
year of the car or whatever because we have been manipulated by
experts to do so. It has absolutely nothing to do with our
health, well being or happiness. Bernays really messed us up.
Fast forward to the present where the witches brew of ecological
harm brought about by industrialization has caught up with us.
And NOW, all of a sudden, we just can’t live without all this
‘wonderful’ energy packed fossil fuel economy.
Methinks somebody wants to slap a guilt trip on the chumps so
they agree to clean up the mess even though the media keeps
claiming there isn’t really that much of a mess. We, the masses,
are accused of being wasteful pigs that bred like rats thanks to
fossil fuels.
Where to begin? How about the fact that family size has been
decreasing, not increasing, througout the industrial revolution?
That’s right. The numbers were baked in by 1800 and the wars
slowed them down a bit. Louis Pasteur and Lister did a hell of a
lot more to create our present population ‘problem’ than fossil
fuels. Most of the key scientific advancements in medicine were
not exactly high tech and fossil fuel dependent. A human makes
it past 5 years of age and he has a huge chance of living out
his 3 score and ten. It was the enormous reduction in infant
mortality brought about by antiseptic procedures that caused the
population explosion, not fossil fuels. It’s a stretch to say
that fossil fuels alowed people to obtain clean water to wash
their hands before delivering a baby, but I’m sure the media
verbal contortionists would toss it out there to further muddy
the waters of historical truth.
The much touted plumbing advancements that require machinery and
factories powered by fossil fuels, while they did reduce disease
in population centers and prolonged life, were setting us up for
more fossil fuel use through improper humanure handling. I
maintain that the main cause of our population explosion is
knowledge of disease microbes, their propagation methods and our
changes in hygiene as a result.
[center]
HTML http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Edward-Bernays.jpg[/center]
[center]Edward Bernays
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>[/center]
What about all this waste we now produce that we have been
folded, spindled and mentally mutilated through Freud’s nephew
Wall Street amygdala reptilian brain control propaganda? They
set us up and now WE are the bad guys? They want us to shop till
we drop and WE are the problem? And how much ‘waste’ do WE
actually produce on a carbon footprint basis compared to the
global 1%?
Well, Senator Bernie Sanders stated recently that less than 1%
of the U.S. owns about 40% of the assets (I’m not talking about
income increases although they have gotten the lion’s share over
the last ten years as well). Yes, I know he talks about banks
too but he mentions those 400 or so elite families every now and
then. Now figure the carbon footprint of those people and
compare it with the rest of us. All those endless films about
diapers, milk gallons and so on used in our middle class
lifetimes with the obligatory landfill mountains thrown in are
nothing compared with the horrendous and gigantic amount of crap
these families generate. Isn’t it amazing that when it comes to
pollution and wasteful habits, we are ‘all in this together’? No
attempt is made to segregate out the worst offenders. On the
contrary, the poor and middle class are constantly demonized as
being irresponsible useless eaters. It’s all quite Orwellian on
the part of the media.
But yeah, we do waste, and we have a waste problem that is real,
so let’s talk about it.
Waste can certainly destroy a society, species or most of the
ecosphere if, as many point out, we continue with the ridiculous
paradigm that we can industrially do multi-generational damage
to the life support systems humans depend on and not define this
as suicide. It’s almost like our nuclear nuts and oil fetish
fucks have morphed us into a mass version of the heaven’s gate
cult. Those people thought they could hitch a ride on a comet by
commiting suicide. Every single step in industrializaton has,
for anyone willing to do the TOTAL math, NOT been ecospherically
cost effective. The fact that a small group of humans has
temporarily benefited at the expense of the overwhelming
majority of humans and all other earthlings right now, not to
mention the obvious acceleration in environmental degradation
promising a super bleak future, seems to go right over the heads
of way to many otherwise intelligent people.
[center][img
width=300]
HTML https://i2.wp.com/disinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/last-chance-to-evacuate-planet-e.jpg?w=480[/img][/center]
[center]Heaven's Gate Cult Leader that convinced many to commit
suicide[/center]
Just like the heaven’s gate cult, people are addicted to a dream
that never was, PERIOD. All talk about this and that from our
youth and how much fun we all had and how nostalgic we are for
those nicer times is the exact same phenomenum of a drug addict
longing for his first high. LISTEN UP! We are a function of the
ecosphere. We DO NOT, despite all the best propaganda efforts of
our scientific community, understand the mechanism of the
ecosphere sufficently to tinker with it, let alone wantonly
pollute it with “externalisms”. EXTERNALISMS!? That’s just some
economist bullshit! There are NO externalisms inside the life
bubble called the ecosphere; it just takes a while to catch up
with you when you mine, bomb and toxify with chemicals NIMBY
areas for a few centuries. We are there and yet our scientific
community and our financial community and our political wheeler
and dealer con-artists with their new techno death toys and
‘miracle’ GMO crops and drug after drug to replace patent
expirations, new ripoff scams, more war profiteering and
emotional button pushing divide and conquer racist crap just DO
NOT GET IT (or maybe they do get it and are insanely trying to
make hay out of it).
The people in charge of our dysfunctional clusterfuck are akin
to that psycho Whiteapple that led the heaven’s gate cult. They
will not change to a sustainable paradigm because THAT requires
subordination to the reality that we are a product of the
ecosphere and the humble acceptance that we do not understand it
yet so, until we do, we must henceforth emulate natural
processes of cradle to grave recycling in all industrial
technology and outlaw destructive activities like war or perish.
No, they prefer to insanely reduce the world population by
environmental collapse in the ridiculous la-la land elite hope
that then the ecosphere will cure itself and they can continue
their merry resource extraction paradigm as if nothing happened.
It won’t work because these reductionist morons in power with
their scientific priesthood of techno nut balls are so full of
pride from all their tremendous ‘contributions’ over the last
two centuries that they cannot see the monstrous downside of the
technology explosion and that, yes, technology can be developed
and used in an environmentally friendly manner. They don’t want
to do the work. They are supremely irresponsible and supremely
greedy and incredibly stupid.
Instead of doing a rethink, they are just flooring the
accelerator and increasing their propaganda blitz.
I am not against technology. Since about 1970 we have had the
knowledge to use technology to produce an environmentally
friendly and sustainable society free of poisons in food and
industry in the scientific literature. It has been deliberately
supressed time and time again. Imagine what it cost to cover the
country with roads and power lines. Well, decentralized power,
food and transportation would cost a hell of a lot less. It’s
total bullshit that we can’t do this or that we are ‘hooked’ on
oil or nuclear or natural gas. We could have switched away
decades ago. In the 70s NASA used solar panels to bring
electricity to a Navajo community which was not served by the
local electric utilities in a southwestern state. It worked
great and the utilities went ballistic. They wrote to NASA
requesting the solar panel project be stopped because, even
though those areas targeted by NASA were not adequately served
by the utilities, the fossil fuel free energy would ‘force’ the
utilities to lower their rates. NASA stopped the project.
The planet earth DOES NOT have an energy crisis. For you
engineering types out there, just do the math on the energy
required daily to lift trillions of tons of water vapor out of
the rivers, lakes and oceans and deposit this at higher
elevations in the form of rain and then try to tell me about how
much it COSTS (ZERO!) and how we are running out of energy. What
the planet earth has, is a HUMAN GREED AND STUPIDITY crisis
among the 1%. But suppose we could dispense with all the agenda
laced perjorative propaganda about renewables, agree to clean up
the planet and eliminate fossil fuel, nuclear and any other kind
of poisonous technology because we have no other choice?
Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? Probably not. I just heard
today (June 11, 2012) on the Thom Hartmann show that
phytoplankton replacement in a bay in Maine has dropped 500%
over a period of a decade or so. The phenomenum has now been
confirmed as occurring globally. Phytoplankton produce
approximately 50% of the oxygen on this planet through
photosynthesis. They are not regenerating adequately because
increased ppm of CO2 (now 400 ppm) is acidifying the oceans and
killing them. Can the elite be so insane that they plan to meter
our oxygen? I hope not. At any rate, we must accept that the
fossil fuel economy is not an exercise in fun conveniences or a
requirement to maintain ‘civilization’; it’s killing our oxygen
supply now as well. We must switch to renewables.
In regard to available energy to maintain some level of
‘civilization’ with renewables, when I mentioned the world
evaporation energy example, I wasn’t alluding to energy
collection through hydroelectric power (although dams certainly
help as long as salmon runs aren’t thwarted), but using this
vast amount of energy available free to shed light on the
scientifically bankrupt view of quantifying energy by using bomb
calorimeters like we did in college and energy mass per mole in
rapid oxidation. Nature has never done it that way. Everything
in our culture always wants to scale up a process or else judge
it as wanting. That is assbackwards from a sustainable
biological process point of view. In our bodies, the reason we
have enzymes lowering the energy of activation in myriad
chemical reactions occurring per second is to keep us from
overheating and/or rapid ph changes that would kill us but the
fact is that the enzymes accomplish a task with less energy than
a straight forward math computation of the chemical reaction
energy requires.
Capillary processes in us are unconcerned with “stream head'”
like scientists or engineers are when they want to build a dam
yet they work just fine manipulating Bernoulli forces to use the
absolute minimum energy needed to move that blood so the heart
pump doesn’t have to work as hard against vessel friction and
pressure changes. In our techno-love affair, everything we do is
geared to centralized and maximum power. For example we really
do not need a lot of stream head to power a house because we can
gradually pump water up to a reservoir in our house to give us
electricity on demand. But the techno math says you need X
amount of head for Y amount of kilowatts. That’s only true if
you need all of that all the time. Sure, not everyone lives by a
river or a stream but that is simply a small example. A giant
Sequoia pumps over one hundred gallons of water hundreds of feet
up every day through transpiration. The tracheal elements can
stretch water molecules 27 atmospheres as long as the vacuum
holds. The technology to make artificial tree water pumps has
been around for decades but our society is STUCK on the energy
density per mole fixation like a teenager that wants a hot car
to ride to school instead of a small electric rechargable
scooter.
[center]Have you heard about the roaring forties? [/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.zenboat.jp/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/e3.jpg[/center]
That’s an area of latitude in the oceans of the southern
hemisphere that is always turbulent. They alone could power the
world’s energy demands after a ten year installation of wave and
undersea current power collection systems that are already being
deployed off of England and Scotland. In regard to corrosion
issues with sea water and maintenance of deep water (massive
pressures to deal with), I only ask that you consider technology
equivalence hurdles that have long since been surmounted in
nuclear power plants (the ultimate in corrosion challenges
including hydrogen embrittlement that is not present with sea
water) and oil undersea pipelines (pump sea water to a land
reservoir and start the power cables from there as a cost
effective low maintenance option).
At present, ocean oil rigs (which are mostly metal) have
sacrificial anodes placed on them so electrolysis in most areas
is thwarted. The anodes are replaced as they are used up. And
remember all we have learned through space exploration about
metallurgy, high temperature insulation during re-entry and
don’t forget microwave power transmission technology. We can do
all this stuff. It’s really not as hard as putting a robot
vehicle on Mars or building a space station in orbit.
It’s telling that Einstein described the photoelectric effect at
the very beginning of the 20th century but the US government has
had to be dragged kicking and screaming to develop solar panels
(we only did it when we needed them in space) but it spent a
fortune on the development of the bomb in the 30s while a large
part of our populace was going hungry.
Have you ever wondered why the oil lobby never attacks nuclear
power but spares no expense to demonize renewables with
disingenuous propaganda and mendacity? Think about that a while.
If you come to the conclusion that the nuclear power plants were
put out there to make bomb material and get you to pay for it
and were never, ever considered a viable alternative to fossil
fuels for the production of electricity or a serious source of
oil lobby competition, you win the prize.
There is also no excuse whatsoever for not using solar and
electric power to run every single ship in the ocean. It would
be child’s play to switch all automobiles and trucks to full
electric as long we had geothermal, wind, tide and ocean current
derived power 24/7, not to mention solar panels.
Do you know what oil tankers do after they offload the oil? They
fill huge portions of the holds with sea water (for ballast) and
then dump it when they get back to reload with oil. This massive
pollution goes on day in and day out. We have a guaranteed
continuous oil spill as long as we have a fossil fuel ocean
tanker economy.
As for fertilizers and food production machinery requiring a
massive amount of fossil fuels to feed 7 billlion humans, the
fact is that using decentralized permaculture with humanure
(after appropriate and low tech local processing to avoid
disease pathogens) along with greenhouse technology for nordic
climates can replace the fossil fuel required to run tractors,
make fertilizer and insecticides and herbicides.
[center]
HTML http://peacefulanarko.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/0522_mz_farming2.jpg[/center]
I mention farm machinery because there is increasing evidence
that plowing needs to be replaced by non-plowing with perennial
crops in order to stop the massive top soil loss and lowered
nutrition of crop yield (they look the same but don’t have the
same nutritional content). Other posters here are up on humanure
and they are right. I recommend anyone repulsed by this to think
again. Feces are an inseparable part of being human and it’s
high time we stopped with this Victorian idiocy of seeing it as
bad stuff; it’s part of our salvation as a species. An added
plus with humanure through the avoidance of chemical fertilizers
is no more ocean dead zones and massive top soil degradation.
Also the energy and water savings in not pumping human waste to
be treated with chemicals (made with fossil fuels) in a sewage
treatment plant would save billons of dollars.
Examples of how renewables can switch us off of fossil fuels
quickly:
www.euronews.com/2012/05/27/germany-breaks-solar-energy-record
www.euronews.com/2012/06/06/solar-plane-completes-maiden-intercontinental-flight
www.euronews.com/2012/03/05/sea-solution-to-future-energy-needs
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
Pelamis wave power device that looks like a giant snake:
www.weirdlyodd.com/10-renewable-energy-sources/
Zero energy balance hotel:
www.euronews.com/2012/05/16/go-green-get-growing
I think this can be done in TEN years, not forty:
www.euronews.com/2012/05/18/in-40-years-every-home-every-building-will-be-a-power-plant-says-jeremy-rifki
Growing food and the fossil fuel ‘requirement’ is a dependency
created by the fossil fuel industry but we CAN shake that
dependency without mass starvation and depopulation:
www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/85/1/Fuel-and-food.html
“The strategic goal of biofuel is to supplement or even replace
fossil fuels, the amount of which is constantly and rapidly
diminishing.” haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/biofuel-1
I’ve already mentioned my views on the population explosion and
its causes but I wish to point out how the oil lobby has tried
to make fossil fuel brownie points out of it.
Remember the green revolution of the 60s, 70s and 80s that
supposedly caused the population explosion? The numbers are in.
The yields are not statistically different with all the fossil
fuel fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides than without them.
The green revolution is a lie fostered by, you guessed it, the
fossil fuel lobby.
Their only valid claim is the fuel for machinery which now turns
out to lower crop nutrition from top soil plowing degradation.
This degradation is caused by a combination of chemical
fertilizers and plowing (bare soil tends to blow away when dry
or erode when wet) which leaches the soil of trace minerals
needed to produce nutritious and tasty as opposed to bland
crops. The way things stand right now, agricultural guidelines
in the U.S. state that it’s okay to lose 4 tons of top soil per
acre per year from ‘modern’ farming techniques. The government
claims it is the price we pay for high ‘yields’. Are you
comfortable with that? I’m not. Considering top soil
regeneration takes over 100 years, I cannot believe we are doing
anything but losing massive amounts every year.
And last but not least, the militaries of the world are the most
voracious users of fossil fuel. We sure as hell do not need them
to keep 7 billion fed and clothed. The U.S. Navy, in particular,
has the top spot as fossil fuel user AND polluter.
[center]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg/350px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg[/center]
We need gradual, decentralized trickle charge or slow pumping
energy storage systems for sustainable humanity. Anything else
is not viable for the planet. If we want to zip around at high
speed and be able to have instant this and that, yes we have an
energy crisis. If we want to emulate biological processes and
eschew the love affair with higher energy density per mole of
fossil and or nuclear poisons killing the planet, we don’t have
an energy crisis.
Nature paces everything; so should we.
All that said, there is the 1% with their hubris and arrogance
and there is the rest of humanity. The agenda of the 1% is a tad
different from the rest of us. I agree the knockdown is coming.
The people controlling the levers of innovation and adaptation
in our governments and the elite parasites that own them want
this knockdown so it will come. I maintain that the false notion
of a causal relationship between a large population and a
polluted, unsustainable, fossil fuel dependent human society is
the driving force behind this elite desire for a knockdown. The
elites are the only truly unsustainable population on this earth
because of their mega-carbon footprints.
So, in true Wall Street Orwellian fashion, they blame the bulk
of the 7 billion humans for THEIR piggery and slavish dependency
on fossil fuels. The 1% that owns our governments loves the
predatory resource extraction paradigm despite the fact that
some of them probably suspect that it will cause a population
knockdown, not from lack of fossil fuels, but from environmental
collapse. Billions of humans dying is considered a good thing by
the 1%. They think it will solve the world’s environmental
problems and provide a more manageable population of slaves. The
1% probably grumble about minimum gene pool diversity species
population required in order to perpetuate homo sapiens. The 1%
think robots will take care of all the ‘important’ work while
medical technology available to the 1% will provide them with
150 year plus lifetimes. They are wrong and they are the cancer
that is destroying humanity.
There’s a way to clean up this world and live sustainably.
Killing off several billion is a straw man. It’s typical elite
bullshit adding two an two and getting whatever answer keeps
them in the catbird seat. The media will continue to block the
truth from the people 24/7.
I apologize if I tried to cover too much ground here but this
situation we are in has matured for well over a century and we
need to see how we got here to understand, if we survive, how to
prevent a new set of snakes from selling us snake oil in the
future.
Feel free to pass all or any part of this rant with or without
attribution.
Everything I wrote can be researched free on the internet if
you want to post links about horse plagues, NASA correspondence
with utilities, Henry Ford and hemp plastic, Rockefeller
chicanery, U.S. solar panel development reasons, Americans
starving while the bomb was being developed, Bernays propaganda
tools, etc.
A.G. Gelbert
Posted in Energy, Home | Tagged Automobiles, Energy, Fetilizer,
Horses, Oil, Permaculture, Propaganda, Sustainability, Waste
#Post#: 10273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE
🌟
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 9, 2018, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> Enjoy the view while you can.
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/iEDh4yj3npw[/center]
>
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/P5_GlAOCHyE[/center]
>
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 15
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page