# Renewable energy



## 73Marshall (Jan 9, 2022)




----------



## clancey (Jan 9, 2022)

These are very important problems to solve in the future. This video cuts off half way but I went on to the original one on the tube to finish the watching of it...Thank you for sharing it and what the man said I believe is very true...I am not optimistic in regard to this but technology is progressing with  each generation and these younger people will have to sort this out in the future because it is going to be their world..Our whole way of life and culture is changing right before our eyes and I really just do not have the strength or quick mind to deal with it...But I understand it and what he said in my heart I know is true...old mrs clancey


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 10, 2022)

Michael Shellenberger is well spoken and mostly correct. He does seem to neglect grid scale storage as an alternative/solution to the intermittency of renewables. Nor is there mention of an interactive grid where loads such as EV's could be varied to match production much in the same way produce is matched to the load today.

I do agree with him on Nuclear, IMO nuclear is the cornerstone that makes a carbon free electrical grid possible. That being said natural gas is still a significant achievement over coal, a combined cycle natural gas plant operating at 60% efficiency produces less than half the CO2 emissions of a thermal coal plant at 30-40% efficiency.

Solar and wind still have their place, I don't intend on pulling the panels from my roof, and I believe roof top solar can still be done at a competitive price and used to offset some or all of the electrical consumption from residential and commercial consumers. I know at least this is becoming the case here, other places the breakeven point has already been reached.

Habitat destruction is no joke, and the consequences need to be taken seriously, but in all existing industries (oil and gas, logging, agriculture) some damage or loss to the existing environment is generally considered acceptable. I don't like solar thermal plants (the bird killing ones he mentions) as solar PV has so enough other advantages with less complexity to make it the go to choice, but is there an acceptable area the planet can afford to loose from the desert in order to prevent climate catastrophe? Is it fair to turn the other way to logging practices that see a section of forest clear cut every 80 years, or see mountains permanently lost to coal mining, while at the same time criticizing solar for the exact same thing?


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 10, 2022)

First they said said Wind power didn't work.  Then they said it was too expensive.  Then they said there isn't enough of it.
Next they said Solar was a joke.  Then they said it was too expensive.  Then they said it was too intermittent.

All of these thing we now know to be wrong.

Where are we now?  The current price of grid storage for day-level intermittency is somewhat higher than the current price of electricity.  This is not a problem today bc the amount of wind+solar is low enough in most places ramping gas plants evens it out.  So we can keep building wind and solar.  Cost projections on the price of grid storage suggest it will be affordable around when wind and solar get to the point that we need it.  Building EVs drives DOWN the cost of batteries and thus grid storage, so the two are synergistic. Smart money knows this and is throwing massive amounts of private capital at this.   No problem here.

Seasonal storage IS a big problem.  The solar resource in New England is pretty good on an annual basis, but almost negligible in Jan/Feb due to cloud cover, just when annual energy demand is highest.  Batteries are not ever going to be cheap enough for seasonal storage.  Current IDEAS are overbuilding solar capacity (ok if cheap enough), fielding different tech regionally (hello offshore wind New England), and HVDC interconnects between regions (New England buys solar power from the SE US, costs depend on right of way development) and/or bulk storage of energy in H2 or NH4.  We won't need to worry about this for a few more years.  Watch this space, but I won't pretend that a cheap solution exists.

And Ivanpah (discussed here extensively) was an experiment.  And widely seen as a failed one at this point.  What that has to do with rooftop or utility (PV) solar is not at all clear.  Its manipulative.

Habitat destruction?  Yup, its a BIG problem.  But mostly due to agriculture, and by extension animal protein production and overfishing.  The solution is obvious... eat less animal protein overall, or less intense animal protein like poultry and eggs.  I personally have swapped out ground beef in several family recipes for Impossible, and no one can tell the difference.  And the kids know this already.

This dude is a book writer, not an engineer.  He loves him some nukes.   I have no concerns about nuke safety or disposal, btw.  While nukes are obv not intermittent (thus his choice of bugaboo), they have their own issues.  Number one is cost.  Which is currently higher than wind/solar+grid storage at 2021 costs.  Normally, costs can only be brought down substantially by learning curve effects, and for nukes it is hard to argue that that has not already partially happened, or that we could get much benefit without building a vast amount more.  Conversely, some argue that NEW TECH will make them cost effective.  I haven't seen a lot of investor line up to fund the existing proposals, though.  Huh.  Number two is scaling, the current fuel cycle is super inefficient and will burn through known uranium stores in decades if scaled.  So, maybe a 'bridge fuel' until better renewables mature?  People talk about breeders or thorium, but the experiments with those have NOT gone well, and have looked complex/costly.

On the positive side... nuke baseload could have a role for seasonal supply in otherwise hard to serve regions.  The true cost if passed to the consumer would be onerous, so it would probably be borne by the regional govt in some way as an economic development goal (exactly like legacy nukes and large hydro).  IOW, the govt will step in with money bags to fill gaps in a future zero-carbon system.

But follow the money.  So far it has been, and is betting on wind+solar+batteries.


----------



## NorMi (Jan 10, 2022)

Schellenberger is a cool dude, as mentioned he's just an old PR/marketing guy turned author so his books are usually full of both correct and incorrect information to sell his chosen narrative.  Usually he sticks his neck out too far on climate, but on nuclear he's usually not too bad.  The main problem absolutely is affordability of the projects.  Virtually everyone knows strategically we are going to need nuclear in the mix if we want societies to continue, the main thing is how to sell it and not go broke buying and building it.  Right now smaller unitized reactors are being worked on for quicker manufacturing, deployment and permitting is on the table, sort of like Ford did with the Model T.  The other thing I've heard as an idea to help offset the costs is using the energy for carbon capture, which is now a necessity for continued survival long term anyway.  The idea is to make carbon capture an intermittent _demand_ to soak up nuke power when the sun or wind kicks into overdrive so they don't have to ramp the turbines down. Problem is no one figured out how to make that profitable yet. The third solution is of course the plethora of grid storage hopes, pumped hydro, EV's are already grid storage once batteries get just a little bit better so they can flip the switch on vehicle 2 grid which most believe is one of Tesla's long-term power plays as a revenue stream for them (and their customers/owners).


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 10, 2022)

I agree about the nuclear. Better have some space (a cubic mile) off limits for a long time than polluting the whole atmosphere a little.

I read the EU is proposing to invest 500 billion euros in new nuclear plants (to try to reach their self imposed CO2 targets).


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 10, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I agree about the nuclear. Better have some space (a cubic mile) off limits for a long time than polluting the whole atmosphere a little.
> 
> I read the EU is proposing to invest 500 billion euros in new nuclear plants (to try to reach their self imposed CO2 targets).


The German party in power are very upset about this approach since they shut down their nuclear program.


----------



## semipro (Jan 10, 2022)

Let's not forget fusion. 
Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 10, 2022)

I want to see how offshore wind in the northeast works out, unlike on shore wind, offshore has a much higher capacity factor. There is no standard fix, every region will have a different answer and country scale high voltage DC transmission lines are probably going to be in the picture to move power between regions.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 10, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> The German party in power are very upset about this approach since they shut down their nuclear program.



Well, the Germans do a lot of things right, recently. This (nuclear) is not one of them - in my opinion.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 10, 2022)

semipro said:


> Let's not forget fusion.
> Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.



Yes. But it remains a gamble. In my view we should not gamble (anymore). If it works out, we'll be ahead. If not we should still do everything needed to save the only planet with bourbon (I don't care about chocolate)...


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 10, 2022)

I don't think humans can convert farmland to energy as efficiently as cattle or other large ruminants. The farmland required to feed humans would eclipse what is currently used for animal fodder. Humans can't eat clover and orchard grass, cows can and there's plenty of fields already in existence. South African farmers have figured out rotational grazing in a way that doesn't destroy habitats and yields high quality beef. 

There is a strong point to be made for poultry over red meat, especially with turkeys that can put on a lot of mass very quickly. Unfortunately "factory farmed" poultry lines taste terrible, are less healthy, and the birds themselves can't live beyond 12 weeks old under normal circumstances (for meat chickens at least, not sure on the timeline for meat turkeys). Heritage poultry breeds get around the ethical problems, but they are much less efficient at converting grain into meat than the "meat birds". 

Maybe the future of food is lab cultured meat that doesn't come from actual animals. I just wonder how the efficiency is going to work out since those muscle/meat tissues are "fed" with carbohydrates derived from farmed plant matter. 

It seems like traditional Russian reindeer farmers/herders have figured this efficiency thing out, but not everyone could eat from the Russian herds. 

Ultimately it seems that our current system of factory monoculture farms just isn't actually working out. Smaller diversified farms that create functional ecosystems are the future. Just like it used to be with every town and city having farms on the outskirts feeding that town. This is what I see in the future.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 10, 2022)

I'm a little surprised by the ruminant angle above; it is quite well known that the energy losses to produce meat (using warm-blooded animals) are humongous. Wheat gives quite more calories per acre than beef... (i.e. comparing human-intake calories per acre).

Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
(And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)

I googled "calories per acre beef", and don't know the background of this website (pushing an agenda or not) - but the table here is consistent in what I've read before. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these numbers (at this time - and I'm unlikely to try to find out; see earlier notion elsewhere about confirmation bias...).






						Calories per acre for various foods
					

we could feed many more people with the same amount of land if we all became vegetarians, but only if we stuck to potatoes and corn.



					www.waldeneffect.org


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 10, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I'm a little surprised by the ruminant angle above; it is quite well known that the energy losses to produce meat (using warm-blooded animals) are humongous. Wheat gives quite more calories per acre than beef... (i.e. comparing human-intake calories per acre).
> 
> Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
> (And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)
> ...



Looks like we should all be eating potatoes.

That being said there is land that is of little use and is used as pasture land, it happens quite frequently up here, its mixed forest with small trees unsuitable for logging, and the land is too wet to be cleared for modern agriculture, so it is grazed in the summer and fall with cattle.

I wonder how the math works out for cattle grazed on grass or pastureland? Is grass more efficient than corn because the entire plant is edible instead of just the kernals?

We try to buy locally produced "free range" meat and eggs as much as possible. I wouldn't consider myself an animal rights activist, but I find the conditions in the large commercial poultry farms and cattle feedlots deplorable.


----------



## NorMi (Jan 10, 2022)

It seems weird to measure acres as the constraining variable, since acres aren't normally a strong limit or constraint.  Usually I see things like water per calorie or energy use per calorie, although vegan/vegetarian like to sometimes oddly use water/energy per kg since that metric masks the low calorie density of a lot of plant foods relative to inputs.  It also depends on what macro-nutrients you want to focus on producing relative to whatever constraint(s) you have.  Here is one I found on a quick search for water consumption, no idea on the quality of the chart: https://waterfootprint.org/en/water...int/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/  Water seems like the wall we might hit first with desertification and aquifer depletion in the US at least.   Ruminants score all over the map, cattle usually stick out as relatively poor performers, but the whole suborder is uniquely adapted to marginal land uses not often suitable for other agriculture, not to mention the local/small scale resilient applications or closed loop low tech use cases.

We'll probably still be using synthetic fertilizer for better or worse for a long time, and that also means getting energy for that from solar/wind/hydro/nukes.  Organic fertilizer too, but that assumes animal agriculture sufficient to act as the intensifier for the nitrogen cycle, or human excreta reuse...  Lab grown stuff I have no idea on the energy balance or other scale-up pitfalls if any.  Right now we use Haber-Bosch which needs fossil inputs, but we can also use other techniques to use the atmospheric nitrogen along with other catalysts and electric input to synthesize ammonia for the nitrogen cycle.  Phosphorus is another constraint we'll be facing, as we mostly mine it, and then through farm runoff put a good amount of the mined phosphorus in the ocean where it is dilute and hard to recover.  That's peak phosphorus and is actively debated, proven reserves say several hundred years, but the estimates are not really independently checked or verified so caveat emptor.  This list goes on down into "peak everything" territory, which is technically a truism for any non-renewable mineral or resource harvesting where recycling potential is not 100% or where continuous exponential growth is the expected human use case.

Luckily agriculture overall is a minority of our energy pie, even though there are many multiples of calories used to make each food calorie it's still only about 10% of the whole pie, so we could still technically do food production at a ~90% loss of available energy output or sources.  It should be noted that in the past energy and ammonia for farming is also used for war making, with the latter often taking historical precedence.

Energy is kinda the gorilla in the room but there sure are a lot of other smaller monkeys running all over the place too.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 10, 2022)

Yes, meat is rather water intensive too. 
Moreover, land is not an issue in this country, maybe (though some would disagree, I guess). In other locations it is.

Regardless, all these problems (energy, land use etc) have many relevant parameters that would alter the optimal mix for each location..


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

I brought up beef production in the context of habitat destruction.  The OP video said we don't have enough land for renewable energy production, which is utter BS.  Humans have already taken over the majority of the planet's land that is capable of supporting green plants, devoted it to intensive agriculture, and is feeding much/most of the product to food animals, that are being eaten by a (rich) subset of those humans.

There is not enough land to feed the beeves to give everyone currently alive the beef consumption of Americans.

I am trying to say this in a 'non-judgey' way.  Neither good nor bad, just what is happening.

IMO the future is NOT 'lab grown' meat (which is hugely inefficient to produce).  It is 'plant based' meat.  The Impossible brand engineered plant protein that tastes like real meat by adding Heme protein grown in GMO yeast.

So, sure, we could sustainably graze animals on marginal land (in principle), but that is not what is being done, and the amount of beef made that way would be a drop in the bucket of demand.  As it is we grow vast amounts of corn and soybeans and send them to feedlots.

If we reduced our beef consumption (with or without plant based meat substitution) the land freed up would be larger than that needed to a 100% renewable energy system.  And don't get me started on Ethanol!


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

semipro said:


> Let's not forget fusion.
> Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.


People like to talk about how few decades there were between Kitty Hawk and commercial aviation, or for that matter, the moon landing.

I like to point out that that is misleading.  Human flight did not start in 1903 at Kitty Hawk.  It started in in 1783 with the Montgolfier brothers in Paris!  It was close to *150* years later that we had commercial flight.

And lest you think that ballon thing was not important, it was.  The 1800s were filled with depictions of a 'just around the corner' era of universal aviation.  With all of us having a little dirigibles in our garage powered by oars or propellors hooked up to bicycle petals.    





__





						Rufus Porter Airship | New England Aviation History
					






					newenglandaviationhistory.com
				




My point: if history is any guide, practical fusion could be around the corner (50 years from its start) or take another 100 years to materialize.


----------



## EbS-P (Jan 11, 2022)

So how about a residential combine cycle natural gas generator?   How is this better than a high efficiency gas heater/water heater?   Can it really be cheaper to generate your own electricity?  



			https://enginuitypowersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Enginuity-NNDA-Deck-Sep-2020_Website-Placement_FINAL.pdf


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

Ruminants don't eat grain, or at least they shouldn't, their digestive system is not set up for it. Ruminants eat primarily grasses and things that humans specifically do not eat. They are the kings of converting low value foods into high value foods. Ruminants include not just cattle, but camelids, equines, pork, rabbit, sheep, and goat. Rabbits are usually regarded as the most efficient converters of grass into proteins, but they are a bit more laborious to breed and farm. Humans used to build much more diverse farms without monocultures that destroy environments.

In keeping with the alternative energy thread, sheep and goats are usually great at cohabitating on solar farms. They keep the weeds and grasses from getting out of control and basically double the energy produced from the same plot of land. Cattle would be more efficient and less labor intensive, but they can damage the solar panel equipment.

"Plant based meats" are not necessarily better. They are loaded with sodium, fat, and cholesterol, and not the good kinds that you find in actual meat. They are junk food plain and simple, much like many other "plant based" foods like donuts.

Humans also shouldn't be eating tons and tons of grain, we only do because they are easy to intensively grow. Furthermore the food waste from the US could probably feed the whole world. Chickens are much more efficient at converting grain into protein than humans, and were one of the primary food sources across the world for centuries.

Most fruit isn't even that great for humans being mostly easily absorbed carbohydrates and some fiber. They take a lot of energy and resources to grow, but I'm sure we would all be sad without fruit products.

I do think nuclear power does need more investments and to be brought back "into the fold".


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

The bigger issue here with renewable energy is the SCOPE of the problem.  We don't need to JUST (1) switch our (let's say North American) energy systems over to renewable electricity, we ALSO (2) need to come up with a system that the rest of the world can duplicate to match our lifestyle!

The first thing (1) will require roughly DOUBLING the output of the US electrical grid, while decarbonizing it.  I've said before that that growth is actually helpful to the transition....it brings in new investment and jobs and a more dynamic and innovative mindset.  Allowing 'clean sheet' designs and projects.

But the bigger issue is (2).  Roughly a billion people currently use 'energy services' at a level comparable (within a factor of 2) to the US, and another 7 billion get by on far less.  I'm not saying they are in abject poverty, merely that as they become wealthier, they will use their money to purchase more energy, just like we did 50-100 year ago.

So we don't need to just replace the current global energy system with renewables, we have increase its output 5-10 fold to account for that demand increase before 2100!  

(And when they get wealthy, they will want to eat like us too.  There isn't enough acres to run the feedlots to increase global beef production by 5-10x what it is currently, let alone switch all those animals to 'free range' diets, which takes even more land).

So, nukes.  Right now, nukes provide 20% of US power with 94 plants.  We would need to increase that by 10x to decarbonize the US energy needs (incl heating and transportation) without renewables; 1000 nuke plants.  And by 50-100X !! to give the current world population our access to energy services, 5000-10,000 plants.  At that scale, we don't have nearly enough uranium (without breeders or thorium).

Conversely, we DO have enough agriculture to feed all those people today.  If we want to scale global meat production 5-10x, we will need to scale plant based substitutes instead.

And the engineers tell us that there IS enough land and minerals and metals to build out THAT MUCH wind and solar and batteries to meet THAT global need.


----------



## SciGuy (Jan 11, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> "Plant based meats" are not necessarily better. They are loaded with sodium, fat, and *cholesterol*, and not the good kinds that you find in actual meat. They are junk food plain and simple, much like many other "plant based" foods like donuts.



I'd agree that current plant based meats aren't necessarily better but you ought to check your self on the cholesterol claim. Perhaps you meant saturated fat?


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

SciGuy said:


> I'd agree that current plant based meats aren't necessarily better but you ought to check your self on the cholesterol claim. Perhaps you meant saturated fat?


You are right, I meant saturated fat, not cholesterol. Thanks.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

I agree that plant based meats are not 'healthy', or even healthier as a substitute for ground beef.  The fat is coconut oil with a similar saturated fat content as beef.

I use it as a component of a 'flexitarian' or 'climatarian' diet which does not include a lot of meat (plant based or otherwise).


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I agree that plant based meats are not 'healthy', or even healthier as a substitute for ground beef.  The fat is coconut oil with a similar saturated fat content as beef.
> 
> I use it as a component of a 'flexitarian' or 'climatarian' diet which does not include a lot of meat (plant based or otherwise).


It is tasty. I don't know if I've had the "impossible" brand, but I've gotten "Field Burgers" from the local grocery store several times. I also can't see it being as energy efficient as raising meat animals with "holistic" environmental practices. For the animal I just raise it and eat it, very minimal processing involved in cooking the meat. For plant based meat alternatives you have to do a whole lot more to the plants that are otherwise edible as they are from the ground. There's definitely a lot of carbon and habitat destruction involved in monoculture factory farms growing crops and then transporting them to a processing facility, and then transporting those processed foods to stores, and then to transport again to your home. 

All of my red meat comes from a licensed processing facility less than two hours away. and all the animals processed are also from a two hour driving radius.  Most Maine farms are not large factory farms, more of a "mid size" farm, and most can't afford to feed their herds tons and tons of grain. Instead they rotationally graze their herds, supplement with hay in the winter for dairy or breeding cows, and do not use drugs unless absolutely necessary. Most of the houses on the main road near my house have chickens or rabbits. 

I know this kind of local farming isn't possible in places like Boston, NYC, etc, and those places will be relying on more processed foods and stuff that has to be shipped great distances. All of the produce we buy in the winter is shipped from at least the giant indoor greenhouses in Southern Maine, most even further. That being said, we also don't buy exotic fruits and veg and eat seasonally. We also have a growing vegetable garden, but that can't provide all the veg we need. We also got lucky and have plenty of wild apples, blackberries, and blueberries, so lots of fresh pie in the fall. 

Maine is also pretty progressive in terms of non-fossil fuel energy, but there is so much opposition to any kind of development. One of the two power companies also said it would cost millions of dollars to connect many renewable energy sources to the main grid, but then was suddenly willing to do it for $700k when a probe by Gov Mills was launched into why it was going to be so expensive. With so much push back on anything other than coal and gas power it's no wonder there is so much propaganda out there.


----------



## semipro (Jan 11, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The bigger issue here with renewable energy is the SCOPE of the problem.  We don't need to JUST (1) switch our (let's say North American) energy systems over to renewable electricity, we ALSO (2) need to come up with a system that the rest of the world can duplicate to match our lifestyle!
> 
> The first thing (1) will require roughly DOUBLING the output of the US electrical grid, while decarbonizing it.  I've said before that that growth is actually helpful to the transition....it brings in new investment and jobs and a more dynamic and innovative mindset.  Allowing 'clean sheet' designs and projects.
> 
> ...


Hmm.  Sounds like the earth has too many people to support. 

I don't know why so many find the discussion of human population reduction so onerous.  
The amount of related ignorance also astounds me.  I've met very educated people who believed that the earth's population was decreasing (confusing this with a decrease in growth rate).


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

The earth is more than capable of supporting all the humans without totally destroying it, that's just not as profitable.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

semipro said:


> Hmm.  Sounds like the earth has too many people to support.
> 
> I don't know why so many find the discussion of human population reduction so onerous.
> The amount of related ignorance also astounds me.  I've met very educated people who believed that the earth's population was decreasing (confusing this with a decrease in growth rate).



That is exactly the problem.  The issue with dealing with overpopulation is that the horse has already left the barn.  The reproductive rate has fallen massively around the world, but the large population through 2100 is basically baked in already.   I am not interested in telling people that they, their children and grandchildren can't do or have what I and my family have access to.  So scalable solutions for energy (and food) need to be found.  And they have been.

I looked up some population density numbers:
US: 36 people/km^2
Maine: 17 people/km^2
Global: 25 people/km^2
China: 148 people/km^2
India: 445 people/km^2
(I assume these numbers are skewed by non-arable land area)

An agricultural solution for Maine might not scale to China or India.

I'll be honest: while it is unpopular, I have no problem with modern monoculture agriculture, which is striving for maximum productivity per acre.  All the predictions were that we would run out of food before we got to a billion people, let alone 8.  Those projections were based on earlier agricultural productivity, which people assumed couldn't be improved upon. The 'Green Revolution' did that, and here we are now relying on it.

Until organic and more local farming methods can demonstrate equivalent productivity, I will be skeptical that they are part of the solution.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 11, 2022)

Not sure that artificial fertilizer was such a "green" revolution.
It did prevent a lot of suffering tho.


----------



## sloeffle (Jan 11, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I'm a little surprised by the ruminant angle above; it is quite well known that the energy losses to produce meat (using warm-blooded animals) are humongous. Wheat gives quite more calories per acre than beef... (i.e. comparing human-intake calories per acre).
> 
> Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
> (And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)
> ...


Disclaimer: I raise and sell beef as supplementary income. Take my comments for what they are worth. I've also raised meat and egg chickens, pigs, and sheep.

I live in corn, soybean, and very little wheat country. What the above chart doesn't tell you is how many lbs or gallons of synthetic fertilizer ( man made fertilizer ) it takes to produce that acre of food. I have a friend that raises corn and beans, the amount of fertilizer that they need to apply per acre of ground is astonishing. After you add all of the fertiizer that's needs put on to get those calories and the diesel it takes to put on that fertilizer. I'd bet more calories are spent ( if you can convert fertilizer, diesel, trucking of goods etc ) to produce an acre of these crops that what we get out of them. Add all of the glyphosphate that gets sprayed and I'd say you are even deeping the hole.

The grass and legumes that my cows eat requires zero fertilizer, zero glyphosphate year after year due the recycling of nutrients via manure. Roughly eighty-five percent of what a ruminant eats comes out the back side. The grass lands that my cows graze are also a CO2 sink. I'll agree with you all day that long that cows are not the best at converting a lb of food into a lb of beef but I also don't think they should have the bad rap that they get also. I'm talking about cows eating pasture, not the cows stuck in a feed lot.

If you want to eat meat, meat chickens are by far the best are turning a lb of food into a lb of gain. On the red meat side, pigs are the best. Yes, pork is a red meat.

Last but not least, support your local farmer. They will appreciate the dollar that you give them more than the grocery store does.


----------



## EbS-P (Jan 11, 2022)

Sustainable agriculture and agricultural products needs to be subsidized to gain market traction . A combine is now 1/2 of a million dollars.  Tractors drive themselves, no operator in the cab needed.   Profit is in the scale for most farmers (and real estate).


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 11, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> Last but not least, support your local farmer. They will appreciate the dollar that you give them more than the grocery store does.


I appreciate your insight. And I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> That is exactly the problem.  The issue with dealing with overpopulation is that the horse has already left the barn.  The reproductive rate has fallen massively around the world, but the large population through 2100 is basically baked in already.   I am not interested in telling people that they, their children and grandchildren can't do or have what I and my family have access to.  So scalable solutions for energy (and food) need to be found.  And they have been.
> 
> I looked up some population density numbers:
> US: 36 people/km^2
> ...


Those population densities were created by arbitrary lines created by old dynasties, colonizers, and empires. There is plenty of space to put people to help them spread out, then you could use sustainable agricultural techniques to feed large amounts of people. 

Aggressive monoculture just isn't sustainable one way or another. The chemicals required to sustain the fields are destroying habitats and creating a lot of toxic waste. The "green revolution" is not really such if all of the pollinators are killed off by glyphosate and habitat loss.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2022)

I'm sure your neighbors won't mind when we move 10 million Indian people to backwoods Maine and sell them each 40 acres and a mule.

I think that the productivity of the biosphere without artificial (Haber) or fossil (guano) nitrogen fertilizer is way too low to support current populations.  We are in 'overshoot' and need those 'astonishing' levels of fertilizer to get the needed yields, and lots of fossil calories to make each food calorie as well.






						Food and Fossil Fuels - Earth Overshoot Day
					

Fossil fuels make up a significant part of the food Footprint. We show how much fossil fuel it takes to provide the food on our plates.




					www.overshootday.org
				




Until a few billion people volunteer to starve, I think we're stuck on the current treadmill.

And even worse, any solution that reduces yield per acre of land threatens to destroy what little non-cultivated habitat still remains, as farms necessarily expand.  Do we want to cut down forests OR get rid of National parks to grow crops using less productive methods?

I want to see productivity numbers (cal/acre) for sustainable agriculture before I sign on.  As it is, I think such agriculture survives on the margins of the food system, and can't be scaled to serve the whole (overshot) population.

An interesting commentary:









						Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World?
					

A new meta-analysis suggests farmers should take a hybrid approach to producing enough food for humans while preserving the environment




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




Suggests that organic methods are equivalently (or more) productive for many crops except grains, and for those nitrogen is the limiting factor.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2022)

10 million people moving to Maine is exactly what this state needs. It's mostly uninhabited with empty houses everywhere, dying towns, no children, empty schools, etc.


----------



## EbS-P (Jan 11, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> 10 million people moving to Maine is exactly what this state needs. It's mostly uninhabited with empty houses everywhere, dying towns, no children, empty schools, etc.


And 7.5 million decent jobs!  I am always struck by how much more land is in agriculture production just across the border in Canada.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 11, 2022)

Sad to say but Maine is destined to be a population poor state, large entities are buying up productive woodlands and locking them up for sequestered carbon. The woodlands are effectively out of production for next 100 years so few jobs for locals. Sure there will still be the strip along the coast for the rich out of staters and some of the larger lakes but they will be seasonal places so there will be caretaker jobs. The rural farmland is slowly being bought up by Amish and Mennonite families.  Only 4 counties are prosperous and are net contributors, the rest are all just scraping along. The government costs still are there and that means higher taxes for those who stay.


----------



## semipro (Jan 11, 2022)

Where'd the OP go?
Great discussion though I think one based on baiting from a brand new forum member -- trolling with a great outcome.


----------



## EbS-P (Jan 11, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> Sad to say but Maine is destined to be a population poor state, large entities are buying up productive woodlands and locking them up for sequestered carbon. The woodlands are effectively out of production for next 100 years so few jobs for locals. Sure there will still be the strip along the coast for the rich out of staters and some of the larger lakes but they will be seasonal places so there will be caretaker jobs. The rural farmland is slowly being bought up by Amish and Mennonite families.  Only 4 counties are prosperous and are net contributors, the rest are all just scraping along. The government costs still are there and that means higher taxes for those who stay.


I had a dream about sugar beet and potatoe farm and distillery once.  Woke up before I got to my still running.  I’m glad I’m not a farmer.


----------



## semipro (Jan 17, 2022)

I still can't bring myself to support nuclear as part of our energy mix.   I just came across this article which describes pretty well why.  








						COLUMN: On Cape Cod, a nuclear nightmare arrives
					

Holtec recently announced, almost off-handedly, that it was considering dumping a million gallons of radioactive waste in our Cape Cod Bay.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 17, 2022)

Fair enough. But I prefer to have one cubic mile of toxic waste over the whole atmosphere being polluted, with major consequences everywhere.

Now, if we could get away from burning anything, and do everything with renewables, great. No nuclear energy for me. But until then, I'll offset your vote


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 17, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> Those population densities were created by arbitrary lines created by old dynasties, colonizers, and empires. There is plenty of space to put people to help them spread out, then you could use sustainable agricultural techniques to feed large amounts of people.



While I do agree with this statement to some extent, I think it has to be made with caveats. For instance there is a pretty big push in Canada right now to keep bringing more and more foreigners into the country, which is fine, we have jobs we can't fill and lack skilled professions, especially in healthcare.

In terms of CO2 per capita though this is a poor choice. We move people from countries like India where a temperate/tropical climate significantly reduces energy demand for heating and basic human survival. Move those people to Canada where using copious amounts of energy for heating in the winter, and large amounts of fuel for transportation over long distances becomes the norm.

Would it be better to keep people closer to the tropics and ship food en masse to them, or is it better to have these people live here and consume some local food, while importing the rest because we simply can't grow things like apples or celery in this climate? I guess we could in a greenhouse at the cost of more energy consumption.

The area around here is some of the most northern farmland on the continent, we produce very large quantities of wheat, barley and canola, many orders of magnitude above what can be consumed locally. It is shipped west via train to the ports on the coast destined for Asian markets. The trains that haul this grain to the coast consume a lot of diesel fuel, but the amount of energy consumed in the locomotives is miniscule in comparison to keeping our city of 75,000 running. It probably makes the most sense to move these new people to Canada and settle them near the coast, say around Vancouver, and ship food to them from here.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 18, 2022)

I guess I disagree with @SpaceBus about small scale agriculture and local production.  In a world of overshoot, with most fo the worlds arable land (and potential natural habitat) already under the plow, we need to maximize production per acre to minimize acres.

I personally am skeptical of minimizing 'food miles' and locavorism.  If you like local food, great, but don't pretend its green.

I have read a few studies about this, but can't find them.  But I did find an old column:









						Locavorism: Fad of unscientific greens
					

The best use we can make of our limited land, water is for each area to specialise in what it produces best, and then transport it to consumers.




					economictimes.indiatimes.com
				




The energy associated with shipping food (by rail or ocean especially) is minimal compared that producing it.  All that Canadian production is better than forcing production closer to the consumers on a much larger area of less than ideal land (or on land that doesn't exist).

Ofc, in the same fossil powered large scale agricultural model required by the overshoot world, taking that grain and feeding it to animals is still a completely avoidable and negative GW and habitat/extinction choice, esp as generational changes and great alternatives become available.


----------



## EbS-P (Feb 7, 2022)

semipro said:


> I still can't bring myself to support nuclear as part of our energy mix.   I just came across this article which describes pretty well why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Had to do a quick google and click a couple time to find out how “hot” the discharge could be.  100 mil rem.  Article states it 5x greater than soils background before dilution at the discharge pipe.  Half live of tritium is 12 years. 

My thoughts  on this discharge should it occur.   Drinking any amount of alcohol is a greater risk than this to an individual.     Waste disposal is an issue that needs addressing.    Radon is a much larger nuclear risk than a controllable discharge to people. 

Economics of new nuclear plants are not favorable.  Unless we have large change in policy I don’t see that changing.   We do need to address base load power generation. Europe really needs to give energy independence a fresh look and see how that might be possible.  Germany closing all their nuc plants while publicly popular has the. Much more reliant on Russia.  France is in a much better position.     I don’t see nuclear power won’t be expanded in the next 2 decades  (unless large scale carbon sequestration technology is implemented)

Edit… forgot the link








						Keating: Holtec has decided to dump radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay
					

The company decommissioning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station told the NRC it will start dumping radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay in early 2022.



					amp.capecodtimes.com


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 7, 2022)

Ah, our old friend, tritium.  Yeah, the cooling water gets bombarded by neutrons, and some of the hydrogens get transmuted to tritium, which decays  to stable, non-toxic Helium-3 after a decade or so.  The beta ray that gets emitted is not penetrating, and has low energy.

The main reason tritium is not a concern is that the element can't be bioconcentrated to cause danger to a target organ, the way many radioactive metals can.  You have a lot of hydrogen in your body, but its not all in one organ.

Moreover, dilution is available (an ocean), and geological/hydrological/biological cycles can't undilute (concentrate it).  So you can compute the dose to any organism swimming in that water (or drinking) and show that it is orders of magnitude lower than the background radiation we get all the time from things OTHER than tritium.  Done.

The article worried about tritium dumping is alarmist and absurd.

Ofc, I might be biased, I carry around a microgram of tritium on my keychain as a nightlight.  Its a little dimmer than when I got it a decade ago.  I'll have to buy another.

Amazon product


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The article worried about tritium dumping is alarmist and absurd.


^^nail on the head.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 7, 2022)

I remember years ago when Maine Yankee got dismantled. The contractor proposed breaking up the containment dome and filling the holes in the site with the crushed concrete. The dome was built with crushed rock aggregate from Maine. Maine has a fair share of granite and its got low levels or radioactive elements including Radon.  The contractor argued unsuccessfully that if they bought freshly crushed rock from a local quarry that it would be more radioactive than the crushed concrete from the containment dome.  I think the utility tearing it down was getting cost-lus, so they shipped it all out of state to some legal disposal site. 

There are several nuclear power plants being torn down by Holtec.  The utilities that owned the plant had set aside money to dismantle the plants after they were shut down but oversight was lax and the final owners underfunded the plans. In the case of Vt Yankee and Pilgrim the proposed soltution by the owners was to let them sit for decades mothballed in hopes that the investments set aside would eventually pay for the plant to be disassembled for less cost as some of the radioactive components would have decayed. It was joke, Entergy the owner of both plants tried to spin off toxic assets like these to get away from the liability and no doubt they figured at some point they would be able to get out from under the liability. Holtech came along and proposed that they would take the money set aside and using their experience and fixed priced contracts that they could tear the plants down quicker for less money and keep the difference in their costs and the amount set aside. The issue with Holtec is they have not inherent assets, if they run into trouble and go bankrupt there are no assets to seize, unlike Entergy.  So far it seems to be working at VT Yankee. Pilgrim is a tarball, SW mass is valuable real estate and politically no one wants to handle a closed down nuke plant. If the state and fed say no, Holtec no doubt is set up as a LLC for the Pilgrim site so they can walk away. Let them finish their work and there is lot of prime ocean front real estate and big block of undeveloped land that gets freed up.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

semipro said:


> Hmm.  Sounds like the earth has too many people to support.
> 
> I don't know why so many find the discussion of human population reduction so onerous.
> The amount of related ignorance also astounds me.  I've met very educated people who believed that the earth's population was decreasing (confusing this with a decrease in growth rate).


The population of people responsible for creating and capable of maintaining the modern world is, in fact, decreasing rapidly.  The growth is currently occurring in populations that are not capable of supporting themselves.





Fewer producers & more eaters=slow collapse


SpaceBus said:


> 10 million people moving to Maine is exactly what this state needs. It's mostly uninhabited with empty houses everywhere, dying towns, no children, empty schools, etc.


That did not work out too great for California.  You don't need resource consumers coming from across the globe to move to your state.  What is actually needed is for competent and intelligent people to reproduce much faster than the current extinction-level fertility rate.


----------



## EbS-P (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> The population of people responsible for creating and capable of maintaining the modern world is, in fact, decreasing rapidly.  The growth is currently occurring in populations that are not capable of supporting themselves.
> View attachment 291766
> 
> Fewer producers & more eaters=slow collapse
> ...


5 th baby on the way!  You are welcome.


----------



## EbS-P (Feb 7, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> I remember years ago when Maine Yankee got dismantled. The contractor proposed breaking up the containment dome and filling the holes in the site with the crushed concrete. The dome was built with crushed rock aggregate from Maine. Maine has a fair share of granite and its got low levels or radioactive elements including Radon.  The contractor argued unsuccessfully that if they bought freshly crushed rock from a local quarry that it would be more radioactive than the crushed concrete from the containment dome.  I think the utility tearing it down was getting cost-lus, so they shipped it all out of state to some legal disposal site.
> 
> There are several nuclear power plants being torn down by Holtec.  The utilities that owned the plant had set aside money to dismantle the plants after they were shut down but oversight was lax and the final owners underfunded the plans. In the case of Vt Yankee and Pilgrim the proposed soltution by the owners was to let them sit for decades mothballed in hopes that the investments set aside would eventually pay for the plant to be disassembled for less cost as some of the radioactive components would have decayed. It was joke, Entergy the owner of both plants tried to spin off toxic assets like these to get away from the liability and no doubt they figured at some point they would be able to get out from under the liability. Holtech came along and proposed that they would take the money set aside and using their experience and fixed priced contracts that they could tear the plants down quicker for less money and keep the difference in their costs and the amount set aside. The issue with Holtec is they have not inherent assets, if they run into trouble and go bankrupt there are no assets to seize, unlike Entergy.  So far it seems to be working at VT Yankee. Pilgrim is a tarball, SW mass is valuable real estate and politically no one wants to handle a closed down nuke plant. If the state and fed say no, Holtec no doubt is set up as a LLC for the Pilgrim site so they can walk away. Let them finish their work and there is lot of prime ocean front real estate and big block of undeveloped land that gets freed up.


I spent some time at Umaine listening to Dr Hess. He would joke that some home water filters from certain areas should be considered radioactive waist.  Samples bottles had so much radon that they hissed when you opened them.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 7, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> I spent some time at Umaine listening to Dr Hess. He would joke that some home water filters from certain areas should be considered radioactive waist.  Samples bottles had so much radon that they hissed when you opened them.Rad



Used carbon filters from residential water treatment systems if disposed of commercially are treated as a special waste. It is or was an issue with firms that were servicing these systems. I think homeowner direct disposal is still legit. When I was researching options for my well it was apparent that many installers went with the more expensive up front air scrubber solution so they did not have to deal with used filters. 

BTW, IMHO the entire radon removal game is pretty shady, most folks do not deal with it until they are buying or selling a house and testing flags it. They are in panic and usually ask the agent for a reference. It is rarely put out to bid and the markup on the equipment is quite steep. Many firms only will sell to authorized agents so the markups can be maintained. They are usually cobbed onto standard well pumps so the power cost is steep as the water is being pumped twice. More than a few treat all the water including the garden hoses.


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> Fewer producers & more eaters=slow collapse
> 
> That did not work out too great for California.  You don't need resource consumers coming from across the globe to move to your state.  What is actually needed is for competent and intelligent people to reproduce much faster than the current extinction-level fertility rate.



It appears to me you are contradicting yourself. Whatever ones opinion on the political leanings of CA, being the world's fifth largest economy, having a rather intelligent economy on average, while being able to feed a boatload of people (salad bowl of the US or something like that), pleads precisely for "it did work out great for CA" imo. And this has nothing to do with political choices one may (dis-)agree with. It's just an observation that based on the measuring stick you use (resource consumption vs production, and "intelligent people"), CA is actually doing well imo.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> It appears to me you are contradicting yourself. Whatever ones opinion on the political leanings of CA, being the world's fifth largest economy, having a rather intelligent economy on average, while being able to feed a boatload of people (salad bowl of the US or something like that), pleads precisely for "it did work out great for CA" imo. And this has nothing to do with political choices one may (dis-)agree with. It's just an observation that based on the measuring stick you use (resource consumption vs production, and "intelligent people"), CA is actually doing well imo.


I don't want to derail the thread, but I feel a need to respond to this.  California is collapsing at a rate 1-2 decades faster than the rest of the United States, and we can watch it in real time.  There is a mass exodus currently underway in California, with a net domestic migration of about -400,000 just last year.  There is a MASSIVE underclass living in poverty in California, and productive middle class workers cannot afford houses.

The fact that the tech economy is centered there, and an elite class of people are bringing home $200,000+ salaries does nothing to speak to the overall health of the economy, or the state in general.  Those who work in the "salad bowl of the US" as you call it, are some of the worst paid people in the country.  Of course California does still have a huge amount of very intelligent people, but they are not reproducing and fleeing the state in droves.  It takes decades or sometimes centuries for a collapse to fully play out, and I am looking at the long term trends.

Further, CA has the lowest literacy rate in the country, roughly 77% (compared to 93% in Maine).  What economic success CA does still enjoy, is not because of millions of low-skilled, illiterate immigrants, but despite them.  California sports a violent crime rate 4x that of Maine.  The average IQ in CA is 95 (the third least intelligent state), while in Maine it is 103.  The quality of life difference between living in an area with low IQ and social trust, and one with high IQ and social trust is difficult to articulate unless you have experienced both for yourself.

In the spirit of being green, it just doesn't make any sense to intentionally double your states population(in an area with inherent fresh water concerns), and try to offset that by marginally reducing per capita energy consumption by a few percent here and there.


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 7, 2022)

You now add different yard sticks to measure the problem as compared to your previous statements.
Regarding population:






I do agree with the "in the spirit of being green" remark.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> The population of people responsible for creating and capable of maintaining the modern world is, in fact, decreasing rapidly.  The growth is currently occurring in populations that are not capable of supporting themselves.
> View attachment 291766
> 
> Fewer producers & more eaters=slow collapse
> ...



I disagree, white collar workers are not doing this state any good when there is a shortage of tradespeople. California literally depends on foreign and migrant labor for the agricultural industry. I chuckle that you worry about African people reproducing when they do little to damage the environment compared to white industrialized nations.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> You now add different yard sticks to measure the problem as compared to your previous statements.
> Regarding population:
> View attachment 291770
> 
> ...







No, I really didn't.



stoveliker said:


> having a rather intelligent economy on average





CreoSophist said:


> Further, CA has the lowest literacy rate in the country, roughly 77% (compared to 93% in Maine).  The average IQ in CA is 95 (the third least intelligent state), while in Maine it is 103.





stoveliker said:


> CA, being the world's fifth largest economy


Totally irrelevant to my point.

No one actually believes CA is an example that should be followed.  If you want to play devil's advocate or nitpick my words, fine.  Most users can understand my points.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> I disagree, white collar workers are not doing this state any good when there is a shortage of tradespeople. California literally depends on foreign and migrant labor for the agricultural industry. I chuckle that you worry about African people reproducing when they do little to damage the environment compared to white industrialized nations.


Ignoring the fact that you are advocating bringing mass amounts people from countries that "do little damage to the environment" (not even true, by the way, most african mega fauna is being poached to extinction) into "white industrialized nations [that do]", every single white industrialized nation has a below replacement fertility rate.  You may chuckle some more in 2100 when there are 4 billion africans to feed and the phosphorous reserves are depleted...  There used to be a country named Rhodesia that they called "the breadbasket of Africa", but they don't call it that anymore...


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> Ignoring the fact that you are advocating bringing mass amounts people from countries that "do little damage to the environment" (not even true, by the way, most african mega fauna is being poached to extinction) into "white industrialized nations [that do]", every single white industrialized nation has a below replacement fertility rate.  You may chuckle some more in 2100 when there are 4 billion africans to feed and the phosphorous reserves are depleted...  There used to be a country named Rhodesia that they called "the breadbasket of Africa", but they don't call it that anymore...


You mean the same megafauna being poached due to industrialized nations buying the animal parts? They aren't hunting those animals to eat them. I was speaking more to climate change, not overhunting, which is very much more a problem for industrialized nations. If the birthrate is decreasing in white nations, and increasing in brown nations, then there won't really be a difference... The fact that you refer to Zimbabwe by the colonial name is pretty sus, but "Rhodesia" was never the bread basket of anywhere. Any time people talk about overpopulation or high birth rates in developing (brown) nations my Facist alarm rings. What is your suggestion for determining who gets to reproduce and who doesn't?


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> View attachment 291771
> 
> No, I really didn't.
> 
> ...


Are you trying to make a joke?


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> You mean the same megafauna being poached due to industrialized nations buying the animal parts? They aren't hunting those animals to eat them. I was speaking more to climate change, not overhunting, which is very much more a problem for industrialized nations. If the birthrate is decreasing in white nations, and increasing in brown nations, then there won't really be a difference... The fact that you refer to Zimbabwe by the colonial name is pretty sus, but "Rhodesia" was never the bread basket of anywhere. Any time people talk about overpopulation or high birth rates in developing (brown) nations my Facist alarm rings. What is your suggestion for determining who gets to reproduce and who doesn't?


Don't know what a facist is; don't care.  Don't have any rules for who gets to reproduce, never said I did.  

If we are talking about historical facts, before the white farmers were tortured, killed, and kicked off their land and had their fields salted, zimbabwe (don't care what you call it) was a grain exporter.  Now it's a starving nation that relies on foreign aid to survive.  Whatever, doesn't really matter.  The point was that the 1 billion Africans ALREADY cannot feed themselves on the land they have, you may have some reason to believe they will do better with 4 billion, but it's not obvious to me.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> Don't know what a facist is; don't care.  Don't have any rules for who gets to reproduce, never said I did.
> 
> If we are talking about historical facts, before the white farmers were tortured, killed, and kicked off their land and had their fields salted, zimbabwe (don't care what you call it) was a grain exporter.  Now it's a starving nation that relies on foreign aid to survive.  Whatever, doesn't really matter.  The point was that the 1 billion Africans ALREADY cannot feed themselves on the land they have, you may have some reason to believe they will do better with 4 billion, but it's not obvious to me.


You mean the white colonizers that stole the land from the natives which they also enslaved and exported? You mean the white colonizers that ruined the native lands which they seized through violence? Being a grain exporter does not make one the bread basket of a continent. Africa is quite possibly the worst example, it is covered in arable land. It was colonized to be exploited for its great climate for growing food. The reasons for Africa being a net importer of food are not related to the capacity for the continent to grow its own food. 

Apparently you can't imagine someone making a typo of the word Fascist. There is the correct spelling, to clear up any confusion you may have.


"Rhodesia" is the name the slave holders gave the land. The free people chose Zimbabwe.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> You mean the white colonizers that stole the land from the natives which they also enslaved and exported? You mean the white colonizers that ruined the native lands which they seized through violence? Being a grain exporter does not make one the bread basket of a continent. Africa is quite possibly the worst example, it is covered in arable land. It was colonized to be exploited for its great climate for growing food. The reasons for Africa being a net importer of food are not related to the capacity for the continent to grow its own food.
> 
> Apparently you can't imagine someone making a typo of the word Fascist. There is the correct spelling, to clear up any confusion you may have.
> 
> ...


This will be my last reply, considering you are posting lies and disinformation.  The colony of southern Rhodesia was established almost 100 years AFTER the British Empire outlawed slavery, and went to war against several African kingdoms to stop it.


> Africa is quite possibly the worst example, it is covered in arable land. It was colonized to be exploited for its great climate for growing food.  The reasons for Africa being a net importer of food are not related to the capacity for the continent to grow its own food.


You got that one right 😆


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> No one actually believes CA is an example that should be followed.  If you want to play devil's advocate or nitpick my words, fine.  Most users can understand my points.



No one?  What about the people in California?  The people voting democratically for its leaders?  Or the people moving there?

Maybe 'No one' you regularly associate with?

I wonder how you feel about Philadelphia... that engine of enterprise (and poverty) right here in PA.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> Yet the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated a single animal or cultivated a single crop.


Last time I checked there were a lot of african herdsmen.  You don't think they domesticated that cattle?

You would like 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.  It talks about how H. erectus got to Asia, and found all these animals that had never seen a human before (and were fearless), and (being poor hunters) ended up domesticating a lot of them.  H sapiens gets to the America's, again, a bunch of animals that don't fear humans, but being better hunters, they wiped out nearly all the megafauna.  Nothing left to domesticate.

There is also a luck of the draw here... many animals resist domestication...  a lot of the African megafauna and US bison, for example, have never been domesticated.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> No one?  What about the people in California?  The people voting democratically for its leaders?  Or the people moving there?
> 
> Maybe 'No one' you regularly associate with?
> 
> I wonder how you feel about Philadelphia... that engine of enterprise (and poverty) right here in PA.





Res ipsa loquitur


Philly is a travesty, but more than 0 people live there and they have elections sometimes, so I guess it's good by your metric.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 7, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> View attachment 291791
> 
> Res ipsa loquitur
> 
> ...


You understand that that is the NET number, a lot of people are moving there too, right?


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> You understand that that is the NET number, a lot of people are moving there too, right?


Yep, you got me.  I was totally under the impression that no one moved to a state with 40 million people in it last year.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Last time I checked there were a lot of african herdsmen.  You don't think they domesticated that cattle?
> 
> You would like 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.  It talks about how H. erectus got to Asia, and found all these animals that had never seen a human before (and were fearless), and (being poor hunters) ended up domesticating a lot of them.  H sapiens gets to the America's, again, a bunch of animals that don't fear humans, but being better hunters, they wiped out nearly all the megafauna.  Nothing left to domesticate.
> 
> There is also a luck of the draw here... many animals resist domestication...  a lot of the African megafauna and US bison, for example, have never been domesticated.







I have read the book.  It's full of just-so stories and falsehoods.

American bison could be easily domesticated; there is not much reason to do it at this point.  It is comparable to the ancestor of modern cattle.  Indeed there are bison ranches today.


----------



## EbS-P (Feb 8, 2022)

Using a pandemic effected year that has no corollary in the past 100 years for population data when birth rates took a nose dive is a single data point and may or may not be indicative of a trend.  Housing cost is an issue for many people.  

My interpretation many people with means that could work remote chose to move to a more rural area but not too far away.  Then there’s Florida??????? Early retirements.  Seems plausible 

I don’t think Maine created 15000 new jobs.  Secondary residences became primary.  County by county data as a percentage change would be the most interesting. Is the impact of California loosing 1% or Maine gaining 1% have similar impact on revenue.  How about Idaho?  Is there influx increasing tax the base enough to take care of the extra resources the extra population requires.  

Millennials have different priorities from their parents.  Even if population growth rate hits zero electricity consumption  will continue to increase faster than efficiency improvements can reduce it.  (There I’m back on topic).  The states with the largest population gain, to my knowledge, have not put in place sufficient policy to adequately address climate change and and infrastructure revitalization in the next 25 years.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 8, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> This will be my last reply, considering you are posting lies and disinformation.  The colony of southern Rhodesia was established almost 100 years AFTER the British Empire outlawed slavery, and went to war against several African kingdoms to stop it.
> 
> You got that one right 😆


🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You mean the people that originally enslaved the natives and stole their land then later outlawed the practice of owning people, that they invented!? What a joke! "Rhodesia" had it's own version of Apartheid with a white English colonist minority controlling the territory while the native peoples are left in poverty and squalor. Yeah, we get it, you are a fascist and a racist.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 8, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Last time I checked there were a lot of african herdsmen.  You don't think they domesticated that cattle?
> 
> You would like 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.  It talks about how H. erectus got to Asia, and found all these animals that had never seen a human before (and were fearless), and (being poor hunters) ended up domesticating a lot of them.  H sapiens gets to the America's, again, a bunch of animals that don't fear humans, but being better hunters, they wiped out nearly all the megafauna.  Nothing left to domesticate.
> 
> There is also a luck of the draw here... many animals resist domestication...  a lot of the African megafauna and US bison, for example, have never been domesticated.


Obviously the indigenous peoples of the CONTINENT of Africa were not capable of domesticating animals or growing crops without white people to educate the savages, after all. 

This is sarcastic, in case that didn't translate.


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 8, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> View attachment 291799
> 
> I have read the book.  It's full of just-so stories and falsehoods.
> 
> American bison could be easily domesticated; there is not much reason to do it at this point.  It is comparable to the ancestor of modern cattle.  Indeed there are bison ranches today.


Bison ranches operate the same way Caribou or Reindeer ranches do, as in the animals are NOT domesticated and purposefully kept wild. Reindeer are being managed the same way today as they have been going back thousands of years, nomads herd them around artic regions. Some Caribou are kept on ranches, but those are non-migratory species, and the "ranch" is just their native territory. 

Just because those Zebra have saddles does not make them domesticated. The domestication process goes beyond putting an animal in captivity and takes generations. 

Bison have never been domesticated, and the ancestor to modern cattle are aurochs, not bison.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 13, 2022)

Welp, this thread couldn't get any crazier, so I thought I'd post this fun long-read take-down of the TED talk phenomenon (and esp TEDx) that started it all:









						What Was the TED Talk?
					

Some Thoughts on the “Inspiresting”




					www.thedriftmag.com
				




As a fun thing for me it also includes a roast of Bill Gates (my personal bête noire), Elizabeth Holmes and Elizabeth Gilbert.

As a techno-optimist (and occasional utopian) I have to maintain boundaries with some of this crapola.


----------



## stoveliker (Feb 13, 2022)

As a scientist, I have often liked the ideas in Ted talks, because they were inspirational. And that is sorely needed in the daily grind of science. But I have indeed always been puzzled about the talks of which I understood the basics (physics and materials science). So unrealistic, ignoring reality. 

I do think this article hits the nail on the head.

There may be a place for talks like this, but not in the science domain, and not as seriously proposing solutions to current problems - only as motivational encouragement (which almost always is unrealistic).

 megachurch infotainment can have its usefulness, though that does not lie in a realistic description and prediction of actuality.

Thank you for that read.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 13, 2022)

Me too.  I enjoy a nice TED talk.

Inspiration and positivity have their place... we need to dream it before we can realize it.  That is true in my experience in science; I need to inspire my students.  But simplifying science and tech down to a ridiculous level, and one that is viral social media ready, is just going to confuse matters and invite a loss of confidence.


----------



## begreen (Feb 13, 2022)

Tis indeed a crazy thread run somewhat amuk. Still, appreciate the diversity of opinions, careers, and knowledge. Thanks all for contributing.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 22, 2022)

Here is a pretty interesting product for producing electricity from a gasificiation boiler using a free piston stirling engine.
Advertised power generation is 1 kW.






						Microgen Engine Corporation - Microgen
					

Microgen-Engine, A revolution in power generation and energy efficiency by using free piston stirling energy



					www.microgen-engine.com
				








						BioGen | Combined Energy Technology
					






					stirling-tech.com
				





			http://www.sunnytek.se/solenergi/termoelektrisk-energiteknik/biogen-wood-log-heater.pdf
		


It could be a cool thing for an off-grid property in combination will solar power, if it really works.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 22, 2022)

Looks kinda niche, since the heat output is 20X higher than the electrical output (ofc, its CHP).  But applications like space heating that need that much heat (20 kW, 75,000 kBTU/h continuous) might want more than 1 kW max.

These Stirling engines pop-up a lot bc if their stated thermodynamic efficiency and long lifetime (one moving part and no wear surfaces).  One company was proposing one for the Space Station that would work on concentrated solar radiation.  The same company tried to use the design for an array of CSP collectors in the desert, and ended up bankrupt.  The main issue seems to be startup/shutdown, poor throttlability, and accommodating variable temp heat sources and sinks for stable operation.


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 22, 2022)

My former employer worked on the first commercial installation in the US of Sterling cycle engines. the company that supplied them went bankrupt and the project was abandoned. Razor went bankrupt trying to commercialize the Sandia National Lab concentrating dish solar technologies but was unable to develop a reliable Sterling cycle heat engine. Dean Kamen claims to have a ready for production design since the Segway but no  entity has elected to license it. He claims that he had one running at his home for some period of time. A New Zealand firm tried to commercialize a home Sterling cycle cogeneration system. Some were distributed in England but I think they were all recalled. There are a lot of broken promises for commercial Sterling engines.  Carnot cycle efficiency still applies so they are not going to be very efficient unless operated at high temperature differentials.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 23, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Looks kinda niche, since the heat output is 20X higher than the electrical output (ofc, its CHP).  But applications like space heating that need that much heat (20 kW, 75,000 kBTU/h continuous) might want more than 1 kW max.
> 
> These Stirling engines pop-up a lot bc if their stated thermodynamic efficiency and long lifetime (one moving part and no wear surfaces).  One company was proposing one for the Space Station that would work on concentrated solar radiation.  The same company tried to use the design for an array of CSP collectors in the desert, and ended up bankrupt.  The main issue seems to be startup/shutdown, poor throttlability, and accommodating variable temp heat sources and sinks for stable operation.


I think it can put out it's rated power output at a lower heat output, but I'm not sure.  Their gas unit is producing 1 kw electrical and 6kw thermal, which seems good.

For an offgrid property, there aren't that many options if you want electricity.  Solar is good, but only sometimes, and if you are lucky you might be able to install a micro hydro turbine.  Other than that you can run an ICE CHP, which is a better option if you have natural gas.  For low quality fuels like wood, the stirling engine seems to be the best option.  

I don't know if this is the company you are talking about, but they seem to have had success with remote power for NG pipelines.





						Qnergy | Remote Power Home – Qnergy
					






					www.qnergy.com


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 24, 2022)

In a cabin, I would have a battery bank, a solar panel, a nice since wave inverter with a kill switch (to not drain the battery when not in use) and a small genny for backup. Micro-hydro would be sweet if available, but I'd probably want to use it to feed a battery bank, for surge capacity... like my backwoods espresso machine. And a separate woodstove for heat.  Not sure I would care about the integration complexity of a CHP system.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 24, 2022)

CreoSophist said:


> I don't know if this is the company you are talking about, but they seem to have had success with remote power for NG pipelines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, that's them.


----------



## CreoSophist (Feb 24, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> In a cabin, I would have a battery bank, a solar panel, a nice since wave inverter with a kill switch (to not drain the battery when not in use) and a small genny for backup. Micro-hydro would be sweet if available, but I'd probably want to use it to feed a battery bank, for surge capacity... like my backwoods espresso machine. And a separate woodstove for heat.  Not sure I would care about the integration complexity of a CHP system.


This is probably discussed somewhere else, but what would your choice for batteries be?


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 24, 2022)

Find someone who has good set of the old Edison cell Nickel Iron batteries, preferable the US built or Varta European cells . The Chinese production batteries have a less good reputation (but some are happy with them. Some Edison Cells are still going after 100 years, if the guts get moved into new cases. They do have their downsides, they guzzle water, crank out lots of hydrogen  and  dont hold a charge for the long term but they can be discharged flat and come back.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 24, 2022)

I"m no expert, but I think the decision comes down to use case and shelf life.  If you are just using the cabin on some weekends, so its a couple dozen cycles per year, I'm sure Lead-Acid would be cheap and last long enough.   If you were living there (lots of cycles), you would either get better Lead Acid, like sealed AGM or even Lithium.


----------



## ABMax24 (Feb 24, 2022)

In terms of cost per kwh it's pretty hard to beat lead acid. The GC2 6 volt golfcart batteries are generally priced quite low, and often represent the best value.

The downfall to lead acid is the limited charging and discharging rates, it works well if charged with solar over a period of many hours, and discharged at a slower rate for lower output appliances.

IMO lithium is the best in terms of performance, high charging amps (minimizes generator run time should you need to charge this way) and better peak output performance if you need to drive higher loads like a well pump. The downside is cost.

If someone is seriously looking at offgrid I'd suggest reading both these books by Victron Energy, yes there is some marketing material contained within, and Victron equipment is used for all the examples, but the information is generally solid and covers topics well beyond what you will find in most "how to" guides.



			https://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/Wiring-Unlimited-EN.pdf
		









						Wiring Unlimited - Victron Energy
					

Wiring Unlimited is now available! Download it for free here: Wiring-Unlimited-EN.pdf What is Wiring Unlimited? A Victron Energy book by Margreet Leeftink, Information Developer for Victron Energy B.V. Wiring Unlimited is all about electrical wiring of systems containing batteries, inverters...




					www.victronenergy.com


----------

