PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Megawatts or Negawatts
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7630

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
CLV
But it doesnt matter wether the kwh is nuclear, coal, solar, wind ect.

The piece linked is specificaly targeting nuclear energy, with what appear to be flagrant lies.


As I already said above - it doesn't matter whether the graphic above shows and nuclear power station or a wind farm, the same argument probably holds.

This is about demand vs supply side not about different supply side solutions.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clv
But the people who designed that poster did so for a specific reason, or did they do a wind farm one that I simply missed....
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7630

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
Clv
But the people who designed that poster did so for a specific reason, or did they do a wind farm one that I simply missed....


Who know what they designed it for... that's not what I'm talking about. Smile

Do you not agree with my first comment: "In a world where we are short on capital (debt crisis), and yet have an abundance of labour (high unemployment) it seems like a good idea to focus on labour intensive energy efficiency."

The picture's just an example of that.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9810
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
....Similarly, there's no merit in employing millions in agriculture.


There is every merit in employing more people in agriculture as oil prices rise. At the moment it takes between 5 and 10 calories of oil to produce one calorie of food. That oil input is in the form of machine energy. As the fuel price goes up it becomes more economic to replace a machine with a person. As fuel becomes scarcer it becomes imperative to replace machines with humans as less fuel would otherwise mean less food and we ain't got enough of the stuff in the UK as it is.

Current agricultural practise is the most economic way of producing food. It is not the most land efficient way of producing food. That is called gardening and involves a high labour input on a small area of land to produce yields considerably higher than is possible on a field scale.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
There is every merit in employing more people in agriculture as oil prices rise. At the moment it takes between 5 and 10 calories of oil to produce one calorie of food.


That sounds as nonsensical as the claim about water consumption in the production of beef.

You'll have to provide references.

kenneal wrote:
Current agricultural practise [sic] is the most economic way of producing food. It is not the most land efficient way of producing food. That is called gardening and involves a high labour input on a small area of land to produce yields considerably higher than is possible on a field scale.


That's certainly not correct. It depends on land quality. And we've neither ever had sufficient labour to garden the UK, nor is it possible.

You need to split this into two concepts before you argue the toss: the mechanization of farming (a sure fire winner as far as I can see) and the fertilization of farming land.

Take care: I suspect I've been small-holding longer than you. And I doubt the farming stock are as dumb as you may think.


Last edited by An Inspector Calls on Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7630

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
kenneal wrote:
Current agricultural practise [sic] is the most economic way of producing food. It is not the most land efficient way of producing food. That is called gardening and involves a high labour input on a small area of land to produce yields considerably higher than is possible on a field scale.


That's certainly not correct.

No? Sounds about right to me. Current farming is certainly not the most land efficient way. It's labour efficient and economically efficient, but there's nothing land efficient about cereals.

Quote:
It depends on land quality. And we've neither ever had sufficient labour to garden the UK, nor is it possible.

Who's talking abut gardening the whole UK? We've never had fewer people working on the land. We certainly do have sufficient labour to increase the amount working the land, and improve land efficiency in doing so.

Quote:
You need to split this into two concepts before you argue the toss: the mechanization of farming (a sure fire winner as far as I can see) and the fertilization of farming land.

Take care: I suspect I've been small-holding longer than you. And I doubt the farming stock are as dumb as you might think.


Maybe I'll let Ken tell you about his farming experience...
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cereals not efficient. I'll just think about that! Could be a problem with a the whole history of mankind, but hey . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
kenneal wrote:
There is every merit in employing more people in agriculture as oil prices rise. At the moment it takes between 5 and 10 calories of oil to produce one calorie of food.


That sounds as nonsensical as the claim about water consumption in the production of beef.

You'll have to provide references.


All of the following reference work done by Pimental a number of years ago.

http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Eating-Fossil-Fuels-Coming-Agriculture/dp/0865715653

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htm
_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great, cut to the chase, help us all to this visonary new world, where's the 10:1 statement?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7630

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Cereals not efficient. I'll just think about that! Could be a problem with a the whole history of mankind, but hey . . .


Not land efficient no, certainly extremely labour and (today) economically efficient.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9810
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This article doesn't supply references but provides the background to the 10:1 oil:food claim. I quoted a range because European food is generally less processed than US food and has lower food miles, or had.

This is another.

At last a [url=http://zerocarbonfarm.com/document library/research/Aug 16, The Royal Society, Energy and the Food System.pdf]paper[/url] but it only deals with the raw food levels not the completely processed food, i.e. wheat not usable flour.

From David MacKay's book, Ch 13, p 79

Quote:
Mythconceptions
I heard that the energy footprint of food is so big that its better
to drive th
an to walk.
Whether this is true depends on your diet. Its certainly possible to find
food whose fossil-fuel energy footprint is bigger than the energy delivered
to the human. A bag of crisps, for example, has an embodied energy of
1.4 kWh of fossil fuel per kWh of chemical energy eaten. The embodied
energy of meat is higher. According to a study from the University of
Exeter, the typical diet has an embodied energy of roughly 6 kWh per kWh
eaten.
To figure out whether driving a car or walking uses less energy, we
need to know the transport efficiency of each mode. For the typical car
of Chapter 3, the energy cost was 80 kWh per 100 km. Walking uses a net
energy of 3.6 kWh per 100 km 22 times less. So if you live entirely on
food whose footprint is greater than 22 kWh per kWh then, yes, the energy
cost of getting you from A to B in a fossil-fuel-powered vehicle is less than
if you go under your own steam. But if you have a typical diet (6 kWh per
kWh) then its better to drive than to walk is a myth. Walking uses one
quarter as much energy.

p 80 - The typical diet has an embodied energy of roughly 6 kWh per kWh eaten.
Coley (2001) estimates the embodied energy in a typical diet is 5.75 times the derived energy.


I started food gardening in 1972 in a small way and bought my first chickens in 1980 and goats and the smallholding in 1982. The goats coincided with the start of a period of no food gardening which ended when the goats left in 1996. The food gardening has expanded ever since except for a couple of years during the building of our house when we gardened with black polythene. What's your history, Inspector?

During most of the history of mankind cereals have been produced and processed using solar power: man powered ploughs: grass fed horses or oxen powering ploughs: the Inspector's favourite windmills or water mills: wood fires for cooking. It is only recently that all this solar power has been replaced by fossil solar power.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
It is only recently that all this solar power has been replaced by fossil solar power.
And for much of the global south it still hasn't.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
You need to split this into two concepts before you argue the toss: the mechanization of farming (a sure fire winner as far as I can see) and the fertilization of farming land.

So we're doing chemicals in Trolland now! What's to argue apart from energy ratios?

Small-holding? We've kept a Jersey for as long so we've always been self sufficient in beef, milk (part-time) and some other dairy products. We've kept AVOID SCAMMERS continuously, occasionally geese or ducks. We produce all our own fruit. We buy some meat and fruit for variety - equally, we give beef and fruit away. We produce a small proportion of our vegetables - much of summer we'll be entirely self-sufficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group