Unsustainable cow manure

not often you see an article full of so many straw men
oil fields deplete, so do coal seams, get over it
US oil production peaked back in the 70’s, nothing can be done to stop it no matter how much territory you open up that has not been available previously
coal is also basically in the same predicament, it is depleting and there is no replacement

Well stated Paul. It is well past time this short-sighted lunacy end.

Excellent article!
Feedlot manure’s are purchased by eco-nuts in towns and subdivisions if its processed (deep stacked for a few weeks to kill pathogens, etc.). When I’ve found myself a suburbanite, yes I paid money for poo myself.
On the farm manure is generally handled by God’s poo processors (dung beetles, worms, etc.). If the ranchers can avoid the use of insecticides then the manure reprocessing by these critters will keep the piles reduced to a bare minimum, especially in high stocking rate pastures. The general rule of thumb is 1 cow will cover 1/13 of an acre in the course of a year. If the piles were permanent then 13 cows would cover an acre in manure in one year.
The dung spread by the green-eco-nutjobs will cover how much? Can we put that to an equation?

This is a sure way to end eating manure “a la Haiti”.

Sometimes those sustainable energy programs aren’t too sustainable.
Just a few weeks ago, we had a school here in the Bay Area installing a PV solar array on their roof. I’m not sure; but I think it was some sort of doantion or similar sort of situation.
So the locals watched in interested fashion on the weekend, when the “workers” came in and started installing those paqnels on the roof. Nobody had said much about the project; so the locals were still watching on the following weekend when the “workers re-appeared on the roof to finish the job.
It wasn’t discovered till later, that the installation had been completed the first weekend; but it was sure noticed that the entire installation disappeared off the roof the second weekend; while the interested locals watched the process.
You know what they say; “Easy come; easy go. ”
I don’t know if they have figured out yet who the thieves were; but you can make some reasonable guesses.

Steve Schaper says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:40 am
“In amidst all the truth in this article are also numerous falsehoods:……”
=========================================================
Said the corn farmer…………..
Wind turbines go anywhere they can catch wind.(prairies are only one of the many places ideal for wind generation.)
They endanger any birds in the area they are planted.
Are you stating the skyrocket the price of corn took with they started ethanol was coincidental? In the area I live in, yes, production of corn is up. Look at the price to understand why. Is the cost going down? No? Someone must be buying up the supply. I’m really hoping somewhere in this country they still grow wheat, because all of the farmers went to corn this year. I won’t even start on the nutritional value of spent spent mash…..
Regardless of the reasoning, ethanol is being used as a replacement to petroleum.
While, you are correct, presently, the planning is to move us of off petroleum, so the percentage of corn used for ethanol will continue to increase.

Wind turbines are planned for building on hills where I live. Hundreds of them. They’ll be visible for 30-40 kilometers stretching from horizon to horizon, plus the flashing nightlight on top. Before you ask why the locals agreed – they didn’t. In the brave new green world, the peasants don’t get a vote.
Some lucky folks will see just whirling steel from horizon to horizon.
Same in Maine and Vermont, and New Zealand.
It’s nice that you can’t hear them, but some people aren’t that lucky. Within about 1- 1.5 km the incessant noise can be intolerable.
Also – it’s pretty well known that turbines are lethal to raptor populations. Raptors use the thermals near the hills to gain height. Sooner or later they are going to fall foul of miles of steel blades. Then the next eagle pairs move in to the territory, and same result.

Steve Schaper – Wind turbines work on the prairies , but if you don’t happen to have a prairie convenient you use the windiest spots available . Those are usually mountain tops .

[snip. Calling people here the d-word is against site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

Bruce Cobb says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:58 am
So GM, I assume you would probably agree with what John Holdren, aka Dr. Doom once said:
“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”

So according to you, planned obsolescence is good, is that correct?
There is no need for lowering per capita energy consumption if you lower the number of people in the right proportion. Of course, there is absolutely no need for the current levels of per capita consumption of energy and resources either, people in Europe already live better lives on half the energy that Americans use and if you get rid of planned obsolescence and other such wasteful practices whose only purpose is to keep growth going at all costs, it can be reduced much further with no negative consequences for standard of living. But you can’t have 9 billion people living a Western lifestyle and that’s not because Holdren or me don’t like it, it’s because it’s a biophysical impossibility, the denial of which can only result in much much fewer than 9 billion people absolutely none of which will ever live a Western lifestyle again. That’s what we’re trying to prevent (or would be if we were a tiny fraction as smart as we think we are)

The green agenda really is all about enslaving mankind so that we can be driven back to the stone age as a first step in the ultimate goal of eliminating humans all together. Any solution to the lefties talking-point problems that are proposed by these people will not be workable, and workable solution, that comes to light will be attacked.
It is pretty obvious from the writings of the greenies that come here to troll, that they are beyond reason. and the only concepts there minds can contain are the one they have been programed to think with.

“…this means that the economy is TOO BIG TO BE SUSTAINABLE and has to SHRINK until it’s safely within the carrying capacity of the planet.” -GM
Who exactly is going to take the hit in your quest for “sustainability” since we know it won’t be you?

wow… It never fails. Keep one of these “sustainability” types talking long enough, and the malthusian ghoulishness come pouring out.

GW:
“people in Europe already live better lives on half the energy that Americans use”
A lot of verbiage being thrown around above, but I just don’t believe this one. I have no hard evidence and I have never been there, but I just plain don’t believe it.

@ Kum Dollison says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:15 pm
How about “the rest of the story” for those extra acres? The extra fertilizer, water, fuel, manpower, etc. to plant, grow, harvest, and transp0rt that corn to turn it into ethanol. And then there’s the nitrogen runoff to deal with. And that doesn’t count the 45 cents per gallon subsidy we as fuel users have to pay. Fact is that without that subsidy ethanol is a net loss. Just as biodiesel has gone belly up without their subsidy, so will ethanol. TANSTAAFL.

PV solar panels aren’t the only type of solar installation possible. There’s concentrating solar thermal, which has the advantage of potentially allowing for storage, meaning it could provide continuous energy in areas with sufficient sunlight, unlike solar panels or wind. It’s also cheaper than solar panels. PV solar panels only make sense in off-grid applications, in my opinion. Also, there is geothermal to consider.

The fact is, the world, basically, has flatlined at about 73 Million Barrels/Day of Crude + Condensate since 2005. To accomplish this we’ve added over 4 Million Barrels of “New” Production every year (this makes up for the declining flow from producing wells.)
This year we are slipping down to 3 Million Barrels/Day. Next year will, also, be 3 mbd. 2012 IIRC will be about 2.5 mbd. We know this because it takes several years of a step by step process to bring a new field online. 2013 is looking even weaker than 2012.
Saudi Arabia, and the chums, overproduced for several months after the “crash.” That brought about a glut that was stored on tankers all around the world. The last couple of months have seen the remainder of that overproduction come ashore. That is giving the impression of “all is well, there is a glut of oil.” That’s Not the way it is. It will take us, maybe, 5, or 6 months to work off the excess inventory, and maybe another year to work off a “possible” 1.5 to 2.0 Million bpd Spare Capacity in Saudi Arabia (includes just a little bit in UAE, and Kuwait.)
Most of the experts are getting very nervous about the time frame around the end of 2012. 2013 looks like the latest that we will roll off the plateau. Jes Sayin.

DEEBEE says: September 21, 2010 at 11:43 am
Yes GM, can your non-illiterate self explain to us, the uneducated how long we can sustain ourselves. Please keep your formulae simple so we can follow your brilliance.
======================================================
Deebee: Don’t worry about our dear friend GM he is really Sheldon Cooper (of the Big Bang Theory) in drag on this blog.
Here is a bio note for you: Sheldon is distinctive for his overtly intellectual personality: he is calculating and cynical, he exhibits a strict adherence to routine, a lack of understanding of irony, sarcasm and humor, a habit of constantly expressing admiration for his superior intellect (which is sometimes found offensive by the other characters), and a complete lack of humility. So just sit back and enjoy.
Doug

The greenest possible car: Fred Flintstone’s car

I think the post and the comments are all over-generalized and as one example only I present:
Steve Schaper says: at 10:40 am
“Wind generators are built on the prairie, not mountain tops”
Which is not true as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Horse_Wind_Farm
These are on high ridges (between 4,000 and 5,000 feet) near Ellensburg, WA and can be seen from 40 miles away. No “clear cutting” was involved as there were no trees. They did flatten a bit of ridge top for their solar panels, though. In another part of the county there are plans for a large area vegetation removal for solar panels with panel production on site:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275770
Note that this project is not in the southwest US where solar is supposed to be found.

OPM-subsidized ethanol also means a few corn growers and ethanol refiners make hefty profits. But chicken and beef producers, manufacturers that need corn syrup, and families of all stripes get pounded by soaring costs, to generate a fuel that gets one-third less mileage per tank than gasoline.
Don’t worry about the corn syrup. The kissing cousins of the (C)AGW proponents in the Nanny State Family, the healthier-eating-through-government-control advocates, have stirred up the hornet’s nest against all corn syrup while pounding the high-fructose drum so FDA action is coming soon. They’ll do their best to kill off the market for that Dangerous Product.
These are the intelligent scientific people who warned us:
Meat is bad for your heart, go vegetarian!
(Dr. Atkins and recent studies show low-carb high-protein/fat is best for cardiovascular health.)
Coffee is bad for you and raises your blood pressure, at least drink decaffeinated!
(Brewed coffee is chock full of antioxidants, regular drinkers have no blood pressure rise, a pot or more a day has no known risks, and decaf is bad due to chemical processing to remove the caffeine.)
Women need their calcium supplements!
(Studies show pill supplements alone aren’t working in post-menopausal women. Weight-bearing exercise builds bone mass, in those not getting such exercise. The drugs that force bone growth may lead to odd growths and other issues. The calcium needs to get stored when you are young with a growing skeleton. Without sufficient Vitamin D post-menopausal women are also prone to calcium deposits in the cardiovascular system, in arteries and at vessel openings and valves, as well as certain organs, and calcium supplements may worsen that.)
And now we know that high-fructose corn syrup is linked to everything from diabetes to cancer to Alzheimer’s. The experts have said it, it must be true. Bring on the government mandates to protect we ignorant consumers who have been lied to by the Big Corn Syrup lobby for so long!
Hmm, I got a bottle of Karo corn syrup around here, better alert the hazmat team…
———-
Irony Note: I see more brands of soda proudly labeled “Made with real sugar!” Weren’t we warned long ago to avoid soda BECAUSE it has sugar?

Larry Geiger says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“people in Europe already live better lives on half the energy that Americans use” -GM
A lot of verbiage being thrown around above, but I just don’t believe this one. I have no hard evidence and I have never been there, but I just plain don’t believe
———————————————————————-
GM, uses the term “better lives” because it is a vague term that suggests a higher standard of living, but actually has no meaning.
People in Europe have a lower standard of living than people of the USA. Unless someone wants to cherry pick select countries, and there standard of living has nothing to do with their energy consumption.
World Top 10 – Countries with Highest
Standard of Living
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland
Norway (huge oil producer), Sweden, and Belgium are tiny countries. I can’t accept comparing them to the USA. Australia has about 20 million & Canada has about 35 million. If you want to believe Canada and Australia have a higher standard of living than the USA go right ahead. I harbor doubt.

James Sexton says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:39 am
“Well stated Paul. It is well past time this short-sighted lunacy end.”
I agree. This is a great post, Paul, which demonstrates the lunacy of what happens when you try to force the pace of change to ‘renewables’ before the economics are right.
However, what’s happening is not lunacy, it has been deliberately planned.
Control the money supply and you control the world… Control the energy supply and you own the world!

GM says: September 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm
But you can’t have 9 billion people living a Western lifestyle and that’s not because Holdren or me don’t like it, it’s because it’s a biophysical impossibility, the denial of which can only result in much much fewer than 9 billion people absolutely none of which will ever live a Western lifestyle again. That’s what we’re trying to prevent (or would be if we were a tiny fraction as smart as we think we are)
——————————————————————————–
GM: Who are the “we” you mention and how exactly going to do this may I ask?
Mic

“And, we’ll still be giving the oil companies Billions of Dollars of Tax Breaks every year (Deep Water Tax Credits, Oil Depletion Allowances, etc.)” – KD
I love this logic. If the government takes less money from a company than someone thinks the govt. should take from said company even if said company is still paying through the nose then said company being given a gift. Does the oil industry get more “tax breaks” than other industries… doubtful.
The government makes more money on a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies. Who’s really subsidizing who?

@ Kum Dollison says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:13 pm
You forgot the NPK, as well as sulfer and other ingredients, which must be mined, processed, shipped, packaged, etc., with attendant costs and fossil fuel use for the machinery doing the mining and so forth. N of course from Nat Gas, via Haber/Bosch.
As for cobs & stover, farmers are not being offered enough to make it worth while to collect it. They would need $100/ton and are only being offered $45-$60/dry ton. http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=78EE09311569C5098D9DFC1E5CFFC258.agfreejvm2?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2a8c8730012aeca821b104a8

GM, never mind who are the “we”, who are you?
All the best.

Justa Joe says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm
The published studies showing higher standards of living in Europe are as bogus as AGW. This is someone’s idealized notion of “better living”. Europe does not have a higher standard of living than the USA. I think they usually cite socialized medicine and cradle to grave social programs as their proof. It’s more a measure of Marxist Utopia than anything else. Some of them live longer on average…. often because they don’t eat like pigs and shoot each other in the streets.

@ Kum Dollison said:

The $0.45/gal “blending” subsidy is, almost certainly, going away Jan 1st.

Let’s hope so.

And, we’ll still be giving the oil companies Billions of Dollars of Tax Breaks every year (Deep Water Tax Credits, Oil Depletion Allowances, etc.)

You might want to read up on depletion allowances. Cost depletion is essentially cost amortization. Percentage depletion has been reduced to 15% and no longer applies to about 35 major oil companies, just to the smaller independents. As for the rest of the story, Obama’s 2011 budget proposes eliminating nine so-called oil-company tax subsidies which, taken together, “save” $5 billion a year. They don’t really eliminate the deductions (except for percentage depletion for independents), they simply lengthen the period over which the deductions can be claimed.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html
As for the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, the basic problem there was that for a two-year period, the MMS screwed up when writing the regulations. Congress had intended there to be a sliding scale that phased out the relief as the price of oil rose past the $18/bbl price in 1995. The MMS has been renegotiating the ’98/’99 leases and six companies, including BP, ConocoPhillips, Marathon and Shell agreed in 2006 to pay full royalties (take no benefit from the Act). Deep water royalty relief is not on Obama’s list to remedy because MMS leases were corrected in 2000.
The GAO estimated that the MMS foul up on leases written in 1988 and 1999 has cost the government $1 billion. You might ask BP how important that is compared to a $32 billion loss on one well. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07682t.pdf

No, Curious, I Did Not forget the nitrogen in the fertilizer. It “in” there. 5,500 btus/gal for That. I did not however, include the $10’s of Billions of environmental damage caused by oil spills, or the 4,000 American Troops killed in Iraq.
As for Oil Companies: Exxon, in spite of $39 Billion in Profits, did not pay a single, solitary dime in Federal Income Taxes in 2009. Not. A. Dime.

@ Jeff
Ever heard of M King Hubbert? you are aware that US oil production peaked around 1971 or so and has been declining at about 3% per year ever since? has nothing to do with politics, just geology and physics and it was even predicted ahead of time with pretty amazing accuracy considering. This method also does not even get into politics, it assumes unrestricted drilling and usage. The same methods can be applied to the world and have been, those too are proving to be pretty accurate. The same can be done for most any mined resource. US coal production measured in btu’s peaked back in the late 1990’s and the US has far less left than many assume. All this info is readily available even at places like wikipedia, plus there are blogs similar to this one just focused on energy supplies. Might be worth your time to read about it.
At any rate the US is down to about 21 billion barrels of conventional oil in reserve(2009) and currently produces roughly 5.3 million barrels per day while importing about 10 million barrels per day of conventional oil. The rest is various liquid fuels. Those numbers are at the USGS and EIA websites. US at its peak produced about 9 million barrels per day of conv oil and about 11 million barrels per day total liquids. All of this is part of US history, nothing secret here. The US could once again unleash unrestricted drilling and the fact is unless it stops using so much oil then oil independence is impossible and it isn’t even close. There is no way it is going to go from 5 million barrels per day to 18 plus million barrels per day and that’s without even factoring in the existing decline rate. Oil fields deplete and we have done a remarkable job using our endowment of it up. Finding more reserves really changes nothing, quality of reserves and flow rate from them are really the key factors. The good stuff that is easy to get and flows at high rates tends to be first and that is true with just about any mined resource. Our discoveries have been lagging our consumption for a long long time while the quality and flow rate of new sources continues to drop. Nature of the beast. Domestic coal is in basically the same situation. We used up most of the anthracite and now we use the dirty hard to get grades we use to just discard or ignore as a waste of time. It is increasingly getting harder to get more and more coal while the quality and heat content slowly drops off.

GM says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“…..The most painful combination is what will happen in a BAU scenario – drastic increase in death rates combined with a drastic decrease in per capita consumption levels,….”
The proposed solutions today, include both scenarios. Changing food to less efficient internal combustion engine fuel, helps how? Planting windmills to substitute for more cost efficient, reliable energy in place of food producing land, helps how? Solar panels are ludicrous.
Of course, as mentioned earlier in this thread, we could try to figure out a way to harness the methane in the seas as a power source, but we choose not to. Why? Or, and possibly in addition too, we could look towards all of the available hydrogen as energy sources. Hydrogen is a proven, plentiful energy source, yet, we have people like you pronouncing doom and gloom and death and limited energy uses. Why?
GM, this is why I find people like you objectionable. Obviously, you’re sharp enough to understand problems. And sharp enough to understand the needs for solutions. But not sharp enough to see the solutions that are all but slapping us in the face?
You say, we are consuming too much. I say, mankind cannot create matter, ergo, mankind cannot destroy matter. We simply move the state of matter. What constituted the earth still constitutes the earth. We haven’t changed the earth in any significant, lasting way. An element is still an element. We haven’t changed the processes, either. What made oil in the past is still occurring or will occur again.
It should be apparent by anyone who has ever read and understood history of humanity, we are beings of action and animation! Civilizations have perished because of lethargy. It is through action, activity and animation that man progresses. We are built for action! Only through consumption of energy are we able to achieve activity.
So, we change our source of energies. We do not limit our energies. To do so would sentence mankind to lethargy and spell the very doom we seek to avoid.

Sustainable energy: GM and the like.
From Pimental and Patzek: BTU input per gallon of ethanol produced.
Corn Production 37,860
Corn Transportation 4,834
Ethanol Conversion 56,399
Energy Input (Total) 99,093
Coproduct Value -6,680
Total Net 92,413
BTU/ Gal Ethanol 77,011
Net Energy balance -15,402
The USDA uses very suspicious numbers and came up with a net total of +30,527. So if we average the two we get +7,516 Net BTU/Gal ethanol. For comparison a gallon of refined gasoline has 115,000 BTU/Gal. All energy used to produce the product comes from the product. If you produced the millions of gallons of ethanol using ethanol as the energy source, you would plant millions of acres of corn to power the tractors, the refinery, the Ag-Chems and the transportation, but NO ethanol would come out of the system. However the system might be sustainable.
GM, we will find out what the carrying capacity of the Earth is in good time so stop worrying about, otherwise calculate the number of nukes you need to reduce the population to your desired level. The sooner we use up all the oil, coal and natural gas, the sooner we will have to figure out some sustainable solution or return to the cave, where it seems to me you want us to go to now.

“”” Dave says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Larry Geiger>
Europeans have a similar standard of living on less energy, honestly. What people neglect to mention is that we don’t need air-con in most of Europe. The other big difference is that we drive more fuel efficient vehicles. “””
Well Europeans have the luxury of having had train systems for ages; whereas in the USA there’s hardly anything much you can call public transportation.
Anything that is operated by public employees who can go on strike; is by definition NOT a transportation system. When I drive to my house in California’s central valley, it would take me across four countires in Most of Europe.
But I’m in agreement that we still could do betetr than we do.
Over here in the usa, trains do not go where people want to go.
So how come those efficient Europeans are not way out in front of the inefficient USA; maybe its those 30 hour work weeks.
A lot of European cars won’t pass California pollution requirements; so we can’t import them here.

GM quotes the article “Yet one kind of energy–fossil fuels–actually increases the carrying capacity of the Earth.”
Then asks: “Yes, for how long?”
Long answer: until the market brings us a new source. The government heavily taxes conventional energy to fund various boondoggles. The energy business has some of the biggest financial risks of any industry, except perhaps chip fabs, but chips aren’t government’s cash cow. The government doesn’t run a strategic silicon wafer reserve. The government does it’s very best to increase the risks and costs of energy.
Short answer: until the government gets in the way of the market.

Dave says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“Europeans have a similar standard of living on less energy, honestly. What people neglect to mention is that we don’t need air-con in most of Europe. The other big difference is that we drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”
========================================================
Yes, also, they are more compact, hence, less necessity for fuel. I live 30 miles from the nearest town of 1000 people. On dirt/gravel roads. I once bought my daughter a Yugo under similar circumstances. It lasted 4 months. Not wrecked, just beat to death from the wear and tear of the elements. I doubt an Audi would last much longer. Its an apples to oranges comparison. I lived in Germany for a while, and been to several other nations in Europe. Its like me going from NY to Jersey here. That’s significantly different than going from the Arkansas hills to Arizona.
Do people know what it takes in some places in Europe to even own a gun, much less hunt? Try throwing your pole in a pond. Better standard of living my ass! IT’S NOT THE SAME!!!!!

chemman said on Unsustainable cow manure
September 21, 2010 at 4:50 pm
In response to Anthony Watts on September 21, 2010 at 10:00 am:
Since we are watching the plight of the Thompsons in Australia over cow manure, this submission titled “Unsustainable cow manure” on sustainable energy sent to me by Paul Driessen seemed appropriate. I put solar on my own home and a school in my school district. Without “OPM”, they would not have been viable, so he […]
So GM what are you doing about sustainability personally? How about a link to pictures showing how you live completely off grid with no carbon source of energy. How about pictures of you bicycling or walking to work. No buses or trains since they use non sustainable energy sources. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical with your posts and you could do us all a favor by not wasting the energy in the electrons used to post your rants.

I’ve never had a car, I live 500m from work so I don’t have to even use the bus, I walk everywhere. You can probably call me a hypocrite because all of the above is completely negated by the several flights I make to go to meetings and conferences, but I can’t do much about that.
It has to be said that I am not for getting us back to the stone age, neither is anyone who is seriously concerned about the future and expresses a position similar to mine., The goal is precisely not to have humanity back to the stone age (from which there will be no return back to a state of high technological development this time because all the resources will have been used up). Why is that so hard to understand?
But you can’t have your cake (billions of people) and eat it too (at a high level of resource consumption). There are laws of physics after all.

robr said:
September 21, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Sustainable energy: GM and the like.
From Pimental and Patzek: BTU input per gallon of ethanol produced.

So why exactly are you saying this to me????
Based on all the things I have posted so far, what made you think I am not aware of negative EROEI of ethanol when I have repeatedly mentioned that in my posts??
You could only post this if you haven’t understood absolutely anything of what I said…

GM:

When I say “we”, I mean the whole of humanity. And there are three ways to bring ourselves within the carrying capacity of the planet – increase death rates, reduce birth rates, reduce per capita resource consumption. The most painless combination is drastic reduction of birth rates plus moderate reduction of consumption. The most painful combination is what will happen in a BAU scenario – drastic increase in death rates combined with a drastic decrease in per capita consumption levels, all of that accompanied with a serious decrease of the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. I think the choice is clear to anyone with two functioning neurons in their brain.

Or, GM, “we” could proceed as we have to proceed anyway, that is sans an iron fisted World domination by people like you to “help” us – which on a National level never has, and which will not happen any time soon at a whole World level, regardless, thank God – and thus continue our struggle as is; with the anticipation that there are going to be winners and losers on a National level as determined especially by the efficacy of different political systems – Socialism/Communism being abject failures, for example; and with the anticipation that the development of amazing new technologies will not suddenly cease as you appear to presume, thus increasing the World’s “carrying capacity” in ways that Malthus, Erlich, enc., certainly were unable to imagine, as proven.
I tend to believe in competition as a determinant as to the question of who and what Political System will survive and adequately prosper and who and what System or Nation won’t do so well. In addition, there is no way that the development of the human mind can be simply declared “over”, something which you seem to have also done.
In other words, GM, I believe in the overarching idea of “Evolution” of some sort as being a process still at work when it comes to the question of Humanity’s survival and progression. Don’t you?
Or, GM, are you going to claim that you and your grandiose schema for saving Humanity and the World from your allegedly necessary apocalypse – which does in fact require World domination to effect – will work this time when it never has when attempted on a National level in the past, and that thus you just happen to be the ultimate form of Man in being certainly able to pull it off this time- instead of being a mere “throwback”?

Dave says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Larry Geiger>
“Europeans have a similar standard of living on less energy, honestly. What people neglect to mention is that we don’t need air-con in most of Europe. The other big difference is that we drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”
————————
Dave, I ‘ve been to Europe for my job (UK, France, Hungary). Americans on average have more material wealth than Euros relative to their economic class. I’m not saying that that is good or bad. I’m not assigning any moral judgement to that as so-called greens would. It’s just a fact. When you see some guy in what you refer to as a stupidly huge truck. It is quite likely that that individual has determined that he needs that vehicle to tow his camper, race car, drag boat, motorcycles etc around. Anyway he paid for the vehicle and he pays for the fuel. When that vehicle is no longer viable he’ll unload it in a heartbeat.
I’m not going to look it up, but I’m going to assume that Americans live in larger dwellings on average than Euros, and I know for a fact that we live more spread out. Those factors contribute to ones econmic standard of living. I would say generally a higher standard of living is going to correlate to more energy use. Just ask Algore.
Probably if you take an area like the New York metro area where population is quite dense. You’ll get per capita energy consumption levels closer to those Euros.

GM says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm
There is no need for lowering per capita energy consumption if you lower the number of people in the right proportion.
And exactly how would you do that? Who would decide what the right proportion should be? Is that you, a tiny fraction as smart as you think you are? Looks like just another twist of the same old Lebensraum meme.
The problem with you guys is lack of imagination. People are a resource, not a drain. If you don’t believe me, have a look at the European pension crisis.
The Uranium-Thorium breeder cycle has the capacity to provide all the necessary energy for billions of years with no long term accumulation of nuclear waste whatsoever. For that matter, we also have this huge fusion reactor nearby with a 3.8×1026 W electromagnetic power output, it’s not even figured out how to turn it off yet. However, burning good public money via pathetic solar panels of the day is not an option.
Obviously we should go for molecular nanotechnology first. With the capacity of 40% economic growth in a day and using advanced storage of energy and retrieval on demand, atmospheric CO2 is turned into a readily available resource instead of a nuisance. Our biggest problem would be how to replenish it in quantity, not how to get rid of it (hint: reprocess some limestone).
With energy in plenty, raw materials are also available with no visible upper bound. It’s elementary thermodynamics. The energy needed to extract any raw material is proportional to the logarithm of its primary concentration, that is, negligible even if the ore is poor. With the right technology, of course.
It is a very small life you are aiming for.

The simplest easiest cheapest fastest and most environment friendly solution is geothermal.
1. Tap Iceland and Yellowstone Park
2. Lay some large capacity DC power cables
3. Link them to existing distribution grids
4. Expand almost infinitely
5. Built is safety as hot tends to cold thus possibly reducing eruptive potential
6. Place expensive infrastructure in secure places or make it mobile (cheaply)
7. provides continuous and very cheap power
Plus these are a lot of other places that can do it and be linked cost effectively.
Why does nobody want to discuss it let alone implement it

GM says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:56 pm
robr said:
September 21, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Sustainable energy: GM and the like.
The ethanol discussion, was mainly addressed to “the like”, the carrying capacity was addressed to you specifically.
Kum Dollison says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Ted Patzek is an oil company activist (worked 7 years for Shell, founded the Southern California Oil Consortium.) Pimental is pushing coal to ethanol. Their numbers were horrible. NO ONE pays any attention to them.
So typical, don’t like the message attack the messenger. So let me see, I will take a tractor, filled with gas, plow a field, then disc the field, then use it to plant the seeds, apply the fertilizer, spray it for weeds, spay it for insects, and then harvest it. I will fill trucks with corn and haul it to be fermented. They will grind it, mash it, rinse it ferment it, filter it, and distill it. It will then be trucked to a refinery to be formulated. Oh and I forgot the energy to produce the Nitrogen, the Potassium, the Phosphorus, the insecticide, the herbicide, and the Lime. Gee that sounds so much more efficient than drilling, pumping to a pipeline and distilling with some catalytic cracking.

Top Per Capita Automobiles by country
# 1 United States: 765 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 2 Luxembourg: 686 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 3 Malaysia: 641 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 4 Australia: 619 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 5 Malta: 607 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 6 Italy: 566 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 7 Canada: 563 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 8 New Zealand: 560 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 9 Austria: 558 motor vehicles per 100 p
# 10 Japan:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles

GM says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Ultimately, the only reliable source of negative entropy we have (unless a technological miracle occurs very soon) is the sun, but the flow is very limited and diffuse. So things like infinite economic growth are absolutely impossible, and it doesn’t take much knowledge or understanding to figure that out, yet the people (usually economists) who like to talk about the “base of the resource pyramid” don’t possess even that rudimentary understanding of things
=======================================================
That would be true if the entirety of humanity possessed your imagination.
Ultimately, what you don’t understand, even in a rudimentary way, is that while there are finite elements, there is an infinite way we can use them. More importantly, there is an infinite way we will learn to use them. We’ll run out of energy as soon as we acquiesce thinking to people such as yourself. Until then, we’ll be fine.
GM, I enjoy engaging, half empty people are just as interesting as half full people, but at some point, you should address reality. In the same fashion that we’re not all going to burn to death in some sort of death/heat spiral, we’re not anywhere close to being out of energy availability.
In my finite, limited abilities and knowledge, I’ve shown where we have two separate sources of potential energy that would and could fit quite well in the society that we live in today. I’m going to go out on a limb and state that I believe there are people out there that can see even more potential reliable, efficient energy right now.
We’ve made a hydrogen vehicle. We know how to burn methane. Fission/fusion? Don’t you think that may carry us for a bit? What about when we learn a more efficient way to harness the sun and wind? Or grass growing for that matter? Yeh, no way we can spare room for one more person. We must be done by now, Malthus said so. SOB was wrong then, and he’s still wrong. Time has shown this. You’d do just as well as believing in Nostradamus. Tarot cards, anyone?

The Williston Basin (Bakken Formation) now shows something like 465 billion barrels of in situ resource (only part of which will be extracted). That’s brand new – and more oil than old M. King ever imagined in the US. There’s now discoveries in another formation below the Bakken that the oil patch thinks might even be bigger.

Another dimwit who can’t understand the very simple difference between original oil in place and recoverable reserves or the just as simple concept of rock porosity and its implications for oil production…

Grey Lensman said on Unsustainable cow manure
September 21, 2010 at 7:15 pm
The simplest easiest cheapest fastest and most environment friendly solution is geothermal.

And what happens when the temperature starts to drop due to overproduction (as has happened in real life).
Geothermal isn’t infinite, in fact it is very limited – we can only harvest as much energy as the Earth releases into space, and I don’t know the number, but given that this is flow over the whole surface of the planet, the harvestable amount isn’t very big.

Like is said…………………….
Peak oil is a myth but really do we need oil, no
Geothermal power uses high tension cables much less impact than pipeline.
Geothermal cables deliver usable power to point of use
Pipelines only transfer energy, it needs to be stored and processed.
You do not need expensive generating infrastructure with geothermal, no boilers. Mass production of cheap simple steam turbine gensets will bring down costs easily.
New generator designs are lightweight robust and very efficient.
Will somebody go for it.
All the experts in Iceland should be fully utilsed expanding their proven use of the technology. Indeed they should tap up the banks that claim the people owe them to fund a massive expansion and they can share the profits to recoup their losses.

“And what exactly prevented Americans from setting up their cities in a compact way too? … your average person in the big cities in the Northeast uses not much more than an European, while in Texas they probably use a lot more than twice as much. So it sprawl wasn’t always the only alternative. But a giant failure of markets and democracy made sure that the US finds itself in the trap it is right now – when the oil shortages hit, the suburbs and exurbs will be essentially unlivable” -GM
cuckoo… cuckoo…
The respective economies of Texas and the Northeastern big cities are vastly different. Well Texas actually has a productive economy for one thing.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0861503.html

Poor GM. You’ve got so many things backwards that its almost impossible to have a debate with you. I’m reminded of Einstein’s remark to a student’s math paper. “That’s not right. That’s not even wrong!”.
Your premise is that the world’s resources are finite and that exceeding them will be a disaster. The assumption that this will happen on a time scale relevant to current decision making is farcical. If it is for your great great grandchildren’s sake that you take this position, may I suggest that the economic collapse of the United States due to an inability to service the national debt is far more likely to take their lives, and generations sooner, than will the planet’s resources being depleted.
Your premise continues that the only rational solution is a decreased population. Regulated and enforced by who? This is a case of the cure being far worse than the disease. Experiments by humanity with central planning of anything on such a scale have not only repeatedly failed, the corruption and violence that ensued as those who had power clung to it in the face of their failure, took tens of millions of lives.
As for your solution itself, may I point out that the first world, which you seem to accuse of having committed some crime simply because they became the first world, already has a birth rate below the replacement rate. It is the 3rd world that continues to expand the population of the planet. How do you propose to “control” the impending disaster to humanity the 3rd world is causing?
As a last example of not even being wrong, my I draw attention to your contention that in a collapse of available resources, the concentrated urban communities will be better able to survive as they will need less resources per capita to sustain themselves while the sprawling rural communities will wind up destitute. What utter nonsense. Where do you think that the food the concentrated urban communities consume comes from? Who will be better off, those close to the food sources or those who cannot eat unless food is transported en masse to their location? Who will drink dirty water from a stream, and who will stare at a tap from which water doesn’t flow at all? Which one would you rather be?
I choose to be neither. Free markets have solved problems that our parents couldn’t even conceive of, let alone the solution as well. Were we able to visit our ancestors of just 100 years ago, we would seem to them to be powerful sorcerers who command immense magic. If we could go back 200 years, we would be seen as gods.
So stuffit. You want to propose a solution today, for a problem that won’t present itself for generations, based on the assumption that nothing new in the way of technology and problem solving will ever happen again, and the solution you propose is the true root of evil. The control of the many by the few for the good of all, but which inevitably collapses, and in its death throes takes the lives of many to enforce a system that utterly fails to achieve even a mirage of its stated goals. Central planning of anything humanity has ever attempted on a large scale has ended in disaster. Central planning of population levels globaly would result in something unspeakable.

GM and pedex:
To the first of you. I clearly stated “in situ resource”. That you cannot read and understand that clear statement of economics simply shows what an arrogant yet stupid person you are. And, I still maintain that you are a monster in respect to your genocidal desires.
pedex: Do some reading beyond Wikipedia. The Bakken is the biggest oil rush in the country today, and resource estimates (not “reserves” – an economic term) have risen dramatically (probably with cause, but there may also be some stock pumping involved. Nevertheless it’s really big. As to the USGS – in my long experience – they are notoriously conservative in their resource pronouncements, but with good cause). Until you can show something that suggests you have even the slightest familiarity with economic geology – mining or petroleum – you rate beneath my butt as source of information.

Sustainable in the New Green Economy means 10,000 people working like serfs to support 1 feudal lord.

Grey Lensman says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Unquote
You cannot be real, would you care to substantiate that claim. One single volcano chucks out more energy than humanity has used.

Give me numbers. How big an eruption and how much energy?
And assuming you are correct, what does geothermal do to address the problems of topsoil loss, aquifer depletion, exhaustion of various mineral resources, general ecosystem collapse, etc.? Nothing. It will only speed up collapse due to those as it will artificially raise the short-term carrying capacity even more.
Of course, given the time it would take to build all those geothermal plants, collapse due to Peak Oil + Peak Water, Soil, Phosphorus and others will occur long before geothermal (in the unlikely case you are correct) makes any significant contribution to the energy mix.

Or, if a an oil well runs dry what do you do, quit????????. No you go and drill some more.

And when you have drilled all sediment basins of the world, where do you drill next? Everest?

Justa Joe says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm
cuckoo… cuckoo…
The respective economies of Texas and the Northeastern big cities are vastly different. Well Texas actually has a productive economy for one thing.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0861503.html

Apparently you are unaware that the first oil boom happened in Pennsylvania. I wonder what happened there since then…
Anyway, your “logic” is a complete non-sequitur. Just because Texas mines a lot of fossil fuels is absolutely no reason for why people in Texas should be living in McMansions and driving huge SUVs and pick up trucks for tens of miles from and to work. Absolutely no reason.

GM says
Quote
where a tiny minority understands something of such impact for everyone that drastic action by everyone is required in order to preent a catastrophe, that drastic action is taken.
Unquote
Thank God that evolution has taken care of that. If not we would still be living in caves or shortly to return to them.
Dont worry GM, its clear that you will not be part of the solution but rest assured you will share the benefits.

Don Shaw,
Thanks for the info on ExxonMobil. The internet seems to breed false stories, some of which have a grain of truth (or not) and can be attributed to someone trying to pile dirt on someone else. I read many things that I wonder about but do not have the time to look into. About five times this year I have thought “that’s got to be false” and with a little searching soon find the truth. And there is the connection – I had the same thought when I first heard the CAGW (CO2) Story.
The most recent thing (not related to this thread) was a picture and story of big horn sheep feeding on the face of a dam in Wyoming. But they were not big horns, it wasn’t Wyoming, and it wasn’t in the US. However, it is now everywhere. This type of story is harder to explain. Why take a true and interesting thing, twist it so it is false, and send it around the world. Where is the payoff?”

Message for GM
I worked in the Oil Business for 40 years, built really things cheaply and on time, represented them at th UN, Wrote laws, So please dont tell me about peak Oil. Its a myth and the story is an open book for YOU to read. Nothing I can teach you nor have an inclination to do.
You clearly have a drum to beat, so beat it, it will not fix anything but instead will just make a noise

Thank God that evolution has taken care of that.

ROTFL, did you really just say that??

Grey Lensman says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Message for GM
I worked in the Oil Business for 40 years, built really things cheaply and on time, represented them at th UN, Wrote laws, So please dont tell me about peak Oil. Its a myth and the story is an open book for YOU to read. Nothing I can teach you nor have an inclination to do.

Did you work as petroleum geologist or as an account, manager, lawyer, or something of the sort? Because if you did, you will be the first petroleum geologist I have ever heard of that claims that there can be no such thing as peak oil. If that’s the case you have a lot of explaining to do regarding where is the oil that will make sure there is no Peak Oil going to come from, why wells dry up and fields deplete and why oil has peaked in so many places in the world and continues to do so in the present. I am waiting for your explanations…

@Grey Lensman says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“…Believe it or not, Big Nasty Oil has just the technology needed to drill very efficient and effective geothermal wells….”
Actually, geothermal is difficult. It’s hard to find both a source of heat and of sufficient heated water to produce more than a few megawatts at a crack. Wells may be dry, or run dry, or cool quickly, or start to plug due to chemical deposits, and on and on. I’m not sure that Big Oil is much, or even any, invested in geothermal energy now. We were, back in the ’70s and ’80s, but like I said, geothermal is difficult. It will provide electrical energy here and there, and serve to heat houses or provide healing spas, but it is not a panacea.
There is nothing like oil, coal, gas and nuclear to provide huge, controllable and dependable quantities of electrical and mobile energy. The sooner we get back to basics, the better. We’ve squandered many years catering to ever more restrictive environmentalism directed at us by fools like GM, losing jobs here while sending megabucks to squalid despots in Saudi and Venezuela and Iran (actually, more of our $ go to Canada and Mexico, but our demand keeps the prices up for SA and all the rest), who repay us by trying to kill us. Maybe that’s the objective of GM’s demented vision – kill as many of us a possible so that we don’t overcome the – what was it? – grazing capacity of dear old Gaia.
The sooner we frog-march these “illuminati” out of our universities and governments and media or wherever else they lurk, the sooner we can get back to being a country that makes things, and knows how to solve problems, and has a dream for the present and for the future generations.

Sorry about the errors and double “post” above, seems wordpress does not like my keyboard.
For the record
I really hate the way the “green” movement is being used and hijacked to support nuclear power. Unbelievable in my book really. Whilst understanding the principles and benefits of nuclear power, I dont believe we need it or really want it. Same with abiotic oil, we dont really need it.
Biofuels come in for a lot of stick but they can be really nice. For example just using 30% of the land set aside as unproductive in New Zealand since 1998, would be sufficient to grow all there liquid fuel needs. This will provide both employment and environmental gains cutting out imports of liquid fuels and reducing abiotic oil use.
Dont ask for a link, thats my own calculations from data readily available.
We also have the technology now, to increase crop yields, reduce fertiliser use and biocide use and with the plus that it is organic. No such thing as a “food crisis” what is real is the manufactured alarm and manipulation of fake markets. But that can be fixed even easier.
We also need to look at hydrokinetic power generation, it is really simple and inline power generation from water flows. You can even use sewage flows for that.
We have so many positive options, it never ceases to amaze me that people find such a need to fight and argue.
For good news just look at the partial restoration of the Aral Sea and the massive replanting of the Himalayan foot hills. With effort almost anything can be achieved.
God bless you GM, Try and divert your energy into achieving real goals.

GM:
You sound like someone who sees evolution as a progressive process towards some more sophisticated and “advanced” outcome, If that’s the case, you have zero understanding of evolution….
Well, GM, this does seem to be the case in regard to Human Evolution and in regard to Evolution in general having now produced a thinking being that even wants to understand – and also especially in an “understanding-its-place” way – its own Creator, the Universe, right?
But now you apparently want to stop it? Or, again, jump right over its ongoing process to an allegedly improved solution, but one which operates via certifiably evil means which have already led only to enslavement or to at least a generally increased misery?
Try this, GM: recall the more vulgar definition of “insanity”. Then simply ask yourself why you blame others for not acknowledging your own [completely baseless] “superiority”.
On the bright side, though, perhaps you might want to sue your Head Start style Education or maybe somehow take it out on the Post Normal Science Propagandists who have apparently succeeded in enlisting you [snip]?

Here, in a nutshell, is how I understand the origin of major scientific hoaxes that are being propagated by the establishment, and the crucial “double-edged” role that these hoaxes are playing in our society.
The powers that be, whoever they are, want to keep their power as long as possible, and to strengthen their position. To do so, they need to keep most of the population in a gullible and malleable mental state, to make people ignorant while pretending to educate them, to let people earn just as much as necessary to survive but not as much as would allow them to stop and think — while pretending to take care of them.
In the past, the Church played a central role in this all-important process of mind-weakening (brainwashing, indoctrination, call it as you like). Old major religions are becoming obsolete (because they so obviously contradict everybody’s everyday experience), and there is a need for new mechanisms that would keep the population in check. Our masters are seeking new effective ways to instill ignorance, fear, and guilt: best tickets to the “sustainable” power since times immemorial.
Violence alone is insufficient; furthermore, it provokes resistance. No, they need ideological smoke and mirrors, to breed slaves who are convinced that they are free, slaves who believe that they have voluntarily chosen the balderdash they have been indoctrinated with.
Establishment (government and other influential parties deriving their wealth from government contracts and legislation) largely controls and finances scientific, educational, and media institutions. Naturally, these institutions become actively involved in indoctrination and brainwashing necessary to maintain the effective control.
Science is becoming the new Church, and academic institutions are its temples. They work out hoaxes that satisfy the needs of establishment: Peak Oil theory, AGW theory, Big Bang theory (a necessary bridge between old and new religions), many other propaganda grooves. Governments and government-dependent industries play an old game of “good cop vs. bad cop,” blaming each other but working together behind the scenes.
The “opposition” is using the same big lies to it’s own advantage. By pointing at the prevailing lies, revealing them and discrediting them, clever operators, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck, are creating a very credible criticism of the establishment. Having built their reputations upon this solid basis of criticism, having acquired a sufficient following by exploiting the truth, what do they do? They sell their followers a positive program, which is a stale brew of old lies with the twist of this or that lemon, depending on circumstances.
This way, these “critics” are still a part of the establishment, a part of the same big lie. They fulfill the most important function, a task given to them by the same establishment that they apparently criticize, absorbing and subverting the discontent fraction of the population, those who started to think but had not enough time and not enough information to think it through. I think both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck realize very well that they are nothing but safety valves in the iron hands of the puppet masters.
Emotionally unstable people are being absorbed and manipulated using the same lies (as in the case of green extremists) or the same criticism of lies with a false “way out” (as in the case of ultraconservatives and fundamentalists of all kinds, antisemitic nutcases blaming “Zionists” for all evils possible and impossible, etc.).
Cultural phenomena (music, art, literature) are also subverted to serve the New Church of Politically Correct Science. Spontaneous self-expression is methodically suppressed, natural talent is persecuted and “silenced out,” everything is bureaucratized and commercialized, the very notion of beauty and harmony is perverted to the most absurd relativistic extent where ugliness, talentless mediocrity and sickness become desired qualities.
When everything in people’s minds is relativistically mixed up and turned on its head, when people are totally disoriented and misinformed morally, economically and politically, they will trust anything that is being told frequently enough and loudly enough, and they will do what they are told to do, believing that they are doing the “right thing.” They become as imbecilic and obedient as cows following the biggest and loudest bull.
Make more than half of this disoriented population dependent on government hand-outs by multiple taxation and “redistribution” (legalized armed robbery under the direct threat of violence, property expropriation, and imprisonment), and they will continually support you by voting for you.
Et voila! Democracy? Tyranny? What’s the difference?
That is exactly what our masters want, and that is what they get.

[Reply: Prohibited words. I’m not going to waste time rewriting ~ ctm]

Excellent post Anthony. To my mind sustainability is the farmer who grows under glass, uses bio waste in a digester to generate methane which is used to heat his greenhouse and the CO2 produced is piped into the greenhouse to increase cropping. Many farmers here in the UK do this and make a good profit from the extra crop.

Reply: They were rather central to your point. To just snip the words without a rewrite would be to allow them implicitly. Seriously, stop whining and learn to write like a gentleman. ~ ctm

Well, precisely because I can’t rewrite it without using those words at least once, I am basically not allowed to make that point here. Which is hardly a proper way to handle things in a society that supposedly values free speech so much…
Reply: All you are saying is that you don’t know how to make the same point in a respectful discourse, i.e. without resorting to demonization. I could do it easily, but I’m not going to do it for you. ~ ctm

Alexander Feht
A fine and lucid analysis. They throw up straw-men for them to be burnt to the glee of the misdirected.
Fertilisers, who needs them, Current technology of course but that has reached its limit. What I am seeing happening is that a group of very fine and clever people are reverse engineering the industrial revolution, in an unexpected way. They are using simple physics and plant chemistry to convert, say simple grasses into factories of mass manufacture. The products could be soil or erosion repair kits or protein builders.
In the light of this, comments such as those made by GM tend to leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth.

Top Per Capita Automobiles by country
# 1 United States: 765 motor vehicles per 100 p
Is p=people?
We have 765 mv per 100 people?
7.65 mv per person?
Where do people come up with this stuff?
Once more, I don’t believe it.
Ok, US = 300,000,000 people
Ok, so we have 2,295,000,000 mv?
Two and a quarter BILLION motor vehicles? Huh? Does that even sound possible? I don’t know anyone with 7 mv.
Ok, so a truck driver has a car, his wife’s car, a hobby car and a motorcycle. His company has one or two trucks per driver. That’s six. And that’s a lot. More than anyone that I can think of. Most families that I know have one or less than one mv per person. And they don’t drive for a living.
Ok, almost no one that I know has room for 7mv. Couldn’t store them or park them if they had them. Does that count tractors and locomotives? Airplanes?
But still, 2.25 billion?

Ok.
For the State of Florida at:
http://www.flhsmv.gov/html/FactsFigures/0810.pdf
There are:
Licensed Drivers – 15,556,658
Motor Vehicles (includes trailers) – 14,349,941
Manufactured Homes – 394,903
Vessels – 746,862
Total – 15,096,803 (I’m not counting Manufactured Homes (house trailers))
So in Florida there is barely one registered vehicle per licensed driver.
Throw in all of the unregistered (hobby) cars, railroad engines, tractors, etc and it ain’t gonna equal 90,000,000. That 90 million is the other 6 vehicles per person times the 15 million people in the state. So how many more vehicles. A million. 10 million (I don’t even believe that!).
But one thing’s for sure. It ain’t 119,008,433 (7.65 * 15,556,658)

Larry Geiger says:
September 22, 2010 at 7:12 am
Top Per Capita Automobiles by country
# 1 United States: 765 motor vehicles per 100 p
Ok, almost no one that I know has room for 7mv. Couldn’t store them or park them if they had them. Does that count tractors and locomotives? Airplanes?
But still, 2.25 billion?
———————————————-
Nationmaster Website made an error. It’s not per 100 people. It is per 1000 people, which would equate to .765 vehicles per person. I just cut and pasted it without scrutinizing the numbers because I was only interested in the rankings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

pedex says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:26 am
“coal is also basically in the same predicament, it is depleting and there is no replacement”
Let’s be define things more closely.
Coal that can be extracted at current costs is depleting.
Geologically, there is at least 3,000 billion tons of coal with current global extraction in the neighborhood of 6 billion tons a year.

George E. Smith says:
September 22, 2010 at 11:17 am
I agree with your post. I may have misunderstood your point. The summation of my point, I guess, is most land can be kept productive if new techniques are adapted. However, in some cases, it may not be economical. It’s almost economically impossible to reverse alkalinity (salt deposition).

“”” Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I was so insensed about this wind power baloney, I decided to write a book on the subject. It is titled “Wind Power Fraud: Why Wind Won’t Work”. “””
Well Charles all one has to do to prove the viability of “wind power” which you dismiss; is to simply put a fence around the wind farm, to keep contaminations; like other energy sources out, and then use the energy outpur of the farm; plus all the raw materials in the universe, in their natural state; to duplicate the wind farm and make a copy of it.
Then whatever energy is left over from the first farm; can be sold at whatever the market will bear.
So you shouldn’t be so negative; when proof of feasibility is so easy to demonstrate.
Well you can apply the very same self duplication principle to any alternative energy source; to establish the viability of such a process.

GM says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:45 pm
However, it is entropy that really matters, not energy or matter, we just like to talk about energy and resource because they are more immediate and tangible and because most people are too illiterate to understand entropy anyway.
—
Careful. That could be a self deprecating.
—
The human body exists in a very low entropy state, human civilization exists in a very low entropy state (think about all those buildings and infrastructure), so you need constant external source of negative entropy to keep things going (this is why the discussion of EROEI is so important BTW).
—
I can’t go out and grab a chunk of negentropy. Schrodinger should really be shot for even bringing up the concept it’s just that bad. At least he had the good sense to admit that he should really have been talking about Gibbs free energy instead. The entire entropy of the universe is increasing whether or not we burn fossil fuels or have babies and it’s doing it all of the time. Look up the heat death of the universe sometime.
The highest entropy state the planet can be in (without breaking up atoms or anything like that) is a homogeneous mass of elements with equal concentration everywhere.
—
Gravity gets in the way of that unless you want to wait until the entire universe decays to a diffuse iron soup. But then, you really don’t have a planet then, do you? Oh, and your fully mixed planet would also have to be at a uniform temperature.
—
The planet doesn’t exist in such a state, there are pockets of rock with much higher concentrations of certain elements, which what we call ores. Those are in a low entropy state which we can input more negative entropy into and take them to an even lower entropy state of near purity. However, when we use them up and they end up in the ocean, their concentration decreases greatly, and their entropy goes up. To get them back to a low entropy state that’s useful for us, or to use lower grade (higher entropy) ores you need a lot of negative entropy, much more than you would need for high grade ores.
—
Repeat after me. Free energy. How about all of that low grade CO2 being turned into chunky plant goodness? Damn you, photosynthesis! Stop using up my negentropy!
—
Ultimately, the only reliable source of negative entropy we have (unless a technological miracle occurs very soon) is the sun, but the flow is very limited and diffuse.
—
Well at least you understand that we need nuclear power of some kind. Hey, how ’bout fission? Lots and lots of fertile material with proven cycles once we have the need and the resulting political will. And no, I don’t even have to go to thorium, but there’s no physical reason it can’t be made to work. Oh, and since the sun is increasing the entropy of the universe, where is it getting its negentropy from again?
—
So things like infinite economic growth are absolutely impossible,
—
Well given that the universe is finite, that’s kind of a tautology, isn’t it? Unless you’re a Hoyle-ist or one of those M-theory guys and think you could be around for the next big squish/ripple/plunk (what DO they call it?). But then again, I don’t think many people are too worried about infinite growth and there is that pesky heat death thing that kinda doesn’t care how many of us are ever around anyway.
—
and it doesn’t take much knowledge or understanding to figure that out, yet the people (usually economists) who like to talk about the “base of the resource pyramid” don’t possess even that rudimentary understanding of things
—
Absolutely hilarious. Here you are whining about all of the entropy humanity is producing and you’re completely oblivious to the entropy the sun is producing. Here’s a hint: it makes far more entropy in 1 sec than humanity has in it’s entire history. An MIT and Caltech grad should be able to comprehend that…
Until you’re willing to actually produce some real physical limitations –maybe prot rot, haven’t heard about that one in a while; or would you prefer the Big Rip?– to proven nuclear power for the foreseeable future and back up these claims of lack of economy and time, it’s just so much hot air.
Oh, and trying to resort to degree pedigree really is a sign of desperation.

GM;
Should you still be following this thread I would like to relate a personal story to you.
The smartest man I have ever known was a guy named John Carlson, long since passed. He had a grade six education. Though never having apprenticed, he made his living in my home town mostly as a welder. But he could walk into a machine shop and fabricate parts when he needed to as well. Sometimes he did electrical work, and he was a pretty good auto mechanic as well. The oil patch knew him well, he could solve almost any problem.
In the 1970’s, we started to see oil wells producing heavier (thicker) oil. At coffee row one day, the oil patch boys were complaining that standard pump jacks weren’t designed for heavy oil. They went up and down at a constant rate. Since the downstroke relied on the weight of the sucker rod in the well to push the assembly down, in a heavy oil well it would often descend only a few inches before the upstroke started. Pinning the assembly to the pump jack head wouldn’t work as the motors they used had no where near the power required to drive the assembly downward, and would have crushed it any any event if they did have the power to drive the assembly downward at the same rate as it went upward.
John figured he could fix that. He said he’d need a lot of specialized parts, access to a machine shop, but he could build a pump jack that went down at one speed and up at another. Keep in mind that this was the 1970’s, programmable controllers hadn’t emerged yet, so this was a feat unto itself.
Some of the oil patch boys decided to fund a prototype, and over the next few weeks he built it. There were other companies trying to do the same thing and it was agreed to do testing on all the models at the same well to see how they performed versus a standard pump jack and versus each other.
The “big oil” pump jacks arrived on semi-trailer flat beds. John’s arrived in a pickup truck. The other pump jacks performed with various results, but only marginal improvements to production and well pressure. John’s pump jack blew them all away. It was all hydraulic, and the speed of the upstroke and downstroke could be adjusted independantly. Within a few hours it had built more well pressure than any of the other models had in two weeks. They never found out how much pressure it could build, the bottom of the well blew out first. The oil companies were lined up around the block with orders.
Interesting thing about John, he was a highly religious man. He advised one morning that he had a vision the night before in which his deity had advised him that his invention was evil. He’d gone to the shop later that night and destroyed his own pump jack.
I remember the engineers from various oil companies sifting through the parts, trying to reconstruct how the darn thing worked. One guy, a mechanical engineer with more letters behind his name than the alphabet, showed me a part he was looking at. I remember what he said. “Not only can I not figure out what this thing was for, it wouldn’t matter if I could. I can’t for the life of me even figure out how he machined these channels in this valve.”
There are two morals to this story GM. The first is that there is a gulf of difference between theory and practice. John with his grade six education had done what big oil, with millions of dollars in R&D, and expertise out the yinyang could not. The second is that John truly believed that he had a vision and was visited by his god. Despite being a self taught metallurgist/engineer/machinist/welder/physicist whose practical knowledge easily outstripped the state of the art in industry as well as academia, John believed his vision was real. Perhaps it was, but I am betting someone like you GM would attribute it to some deep rooted psychological fear of success. I’d tend to agree with you. The point however, is that degrees don’t make you smart any more than not having them makes you stupid, and there is no telling what oddities people as intelligent as John Carlson believe to be true.
You sir remind me of John. Highly intelligent, articulate, and though you hold the degrees John did not have, your belief system if firmly rooted in a notion that is based mostly on faith and theory, not on practical knowledge.

GM
Titan, (The moon) no dinosaurs there but loads of hydrocarbons plus loads of deadly global warming methane but guess what, no global warming.
A distraction, i think, not but firm evidence that all is not as it is expressed to be.
And as an aside, denying evidence, is in common law, a fatal flaw.

davidmhoffer says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:41 am
Despite your protestations in regard to flaunting your credentials, your comments about “the common folk” and the manner in which you present your arguments clearly suggest that you consider yourself to be of superior intellect, at once looking down your nose at the lower intelligence of the great unwashed and at the same time frustrated that they cannot grasp what is such an obvious truth to you. You have concluded that the rejection of your arguments is rooted both in distrust of the intellectual class to which you belong, and in an inability of the “common folk” to put aside their belief systems when confronted with the facts of your theory. You have missed my point.

Far from it. I come from exactly the same common folk background that you accuse me of despising. As I said, it is very easy to misunderstand people who are worried about the intellectual level of the masses as being elitist. In fact what those people usually want is to eliminate that difference by elevating the masses to the level they need to be at. That’s no elitism at all. Nobody has solved any problem whose existence hasn’t even been mentioned.

In theory, the problem you propose is real. Resources are finite and will be depleted. In practice however, the problem doesn’t exist. The solution that your propose works in theory. In practice it is immoral at best, and a descent into the worst inhumanities in history at worst.

1. What exactly is the solution that you think I am proposing?
2. What exactly do you propose? I never said I like what has to be done (and for the 1758696th time, nobody is suggesting lining up people and shooting them, that’s only what completely deranged lunatics with absolutely no reading comprehension skills think I am suggesting, and it, ironically, what’s going to happen if we don’t get our act together)
3. You can only claim that there is a problem “in theory but not in practice” if you have absolutely no clue about the state of the world. I will be very surprised if there are no serious disruption to the social order in the next few decades. The food riots had already started in 2008 when the recession hit, what makes you think two years from now it will be better? Will we have solved Peak Oil in 2 years?

The first moral of my story was that there is a vast gulf between theory and practice. You argue from theory.

I don’t argue from theory, I argue from data. The US peaked in 1970 exactly as predicted by the models applied to the data. Those same models predict a world peak between 2000 and 2010 (given that discovery peaked in the 1960s), we have been on a plateau since 2005. When the US peaked, it became an importer, the planet, however, has nowhere to import oil from. The consequences are clear. What here is “theory”. What is “theory” about civilizational collapse? All civilizations that had existed on this planet before have collapsed. A large number of them have done so for reasons that very clearly have a lot to do with them overshooting the carrying capacity of their environment, and in most of those cases the collapse has been real ugly. Few of them ever recovered to a level anywhere close to their former glory.
You can only type up all that nonsense if you have absolutely no idea what scientists mean when they use the word “theory”. I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you, I will only say that the “theory is useless, practice matters” approach to thing is a manifestation of exactly the same knee-jerk anti-intellectualism I so often complain about.

Is GM George Monbiot? Or Genetically Modified?

The scam spreads
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/09/scam-spreads.html

It should also be noted about the rarity of rare earths that…
“The term “rare earth” arises from the rare earth minerals from which they were first isolated, which were uncommon oxide-type minerals (earths) found in Gadolinite extracted from one mine in the village of Ytterby, Sweden. However, with the exception of the highly-unstable promethium, rare earth elements are found in relatively high concentrations in the earth’s crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust at 68 parts per million.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earths

@ GM
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1038
might be a different guy but I doubt it

[snip]

Grey Lensman says:
September 24, 2010 at 1:27 am
E.M.Smith
That really bugs me, just how do we get rid of that EROI nonsense, for thats exactly what it is. The fact that the so called super efficient USA uses corn to make ethanol and excludes ethanol from much more efficient sources does not help.

The fact that the USA uses corn is due to the infinite wisdom of decoupling cost as measured in $ signs from the actual energy costs of things. This is the only reason.
The existence of a sufficiently large mass of [snip] who don’t understand the importance of EROEI is the other.

One of the most amazing things I have seen in my years on the internet is that a pretty good indicator of the amount of censoring is how loudly the website touts freedom and democracy as highest virtues (and how loudly those that are perceived as threats to them are attacked). Very interesting observation…

davidmhoffer says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:41 am “In theory, the problem you propose is real. Resources are finite and will be depleted. … Is there an end to entropy? Of course. … Is there peak oil and can guys like John put more in the ground? Of course there is and of course they can’t. ”
You give too much ground. I realise this wasn’t your main point, but the above statements are not correct. In an open universe, entropy can continue to increase for ever, without limit. The observational evidence suggests that our universe is of this type; that it is infinite in extent and will expand for ever. Such a universe can avoid the so-called “heat death”.
Peak oil was – and is – the theory that cumulative production follows a bell-shaped mathematical curve (the Hubbert curve), and that total production can be predicted from past production. Like AGW, the theory was soon disproved; it made predictions that proved false. It is false because it fundamentally misunderstands the economic and political nature of oil exploration and production. It is not a physical law.
The amount of oil we produce is and will always be determined by how much we want to proeduce (where “want” is some sort of resultant of all the economic and political demands, in conjunction with the fashionable technologies of the day). There is no physical limit. If we want to put more oil in the ground, we can do so. We probably will, at some stage, as a convenient way of storing reserves. My guess is that on Earth oil+gas production will plateau at a level rather higher than now, then slowly fall off as consumer demand shifts towards other technologies, mainly electric. There will be significant production for specialised purposes indefinitely. Off Earth, though, it will probably never become very important outside those specialised uses, other technologies being used from the outset.

If you have to go there, self aggrandizement…that is unverifiable btw, then you’ve already lost.

So my MIT+Caltech education and total lack of desire to sugarcoat things don’t work in my favor.

What does GM stand for anyway? I think the G is for Gloom, not sure about M.
Frankly GM, every position you have taken has been shredded, hats off to EM Smith in particular. I have never had a comment snipped but I have gotten away with some pretty serious put downs, though clever wording was required. If you are getting snipped then you’ve descended into name calling. If you, with your certitude in your superior intellect which provides you with the vision to see what most others don’t, are unable to calm down and articulate your position in terms acceptable to Anthony’s rules of common courtesy, then I must ask if your arguments have a factual and logical basis at all. Certainly you have not responded to any of EMSmiths highly compelling cases which would require no vulgar terms to dispute had you the evidence and ability to do so.
You remain wedded to your vision, that only you and a small number of other people can see, of a future so dark that you see a cloud behind every silver lining. You say society has no mechanism for dealing with a situation where a small number of intellectuals can see a problem that the rest of us can’t. In fact we have a long standing process on this issue. When people “see things” that other people can’t, and refuse to even consider that they may not be seeing what they think they did when presented with massive evidence to the contrary, we submit them to professionals trained in large medical instituations to assess the person, determine the nature of their psychosis and if it results in them being a danger to themselves or others.