184 comments on DrumBeat: May 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
184 comments on DrumBeat: May 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Yes, there are other issues besides fuel for the tractors. We really need electrified rail (large PV arrays in remote locations could provide the power, if most trains were scheduled to run during the day). Biodiesel could also fuel barges and ships for bulk transport of grains. As for the tractors themselves, the oilseeds could be grown and pressed right on the farm.
Yes, water is a big problem - it deserves to be far higher up on the list of problems than the fuel supply for farm equipment. Global climate change should open up more northerly, better watered lands for cultivation to replace the arid lands that are running out of water; not only do northerly lands have more precipitation, they will also have less evaporation, so salinization will be less of a problem. Agriculture is going to have to get a lot better about managing and conserving water, just like we are all going to have to get a lot better about managing and conserving energy.
Or we could all cut beef out of our diet and make up most of the difference right there. It wouldn't even be necesary to all become vegans - just cut out the beef and that will get us most of the way there.
Fertilizers are the least important input in crop productivity. Making sure the plants get plenty of sunlight and water (& thus keeping the weeds from competing from the plants for water) and keeping all the other life forms from eating the crop before we do are the most important thing. Putting plenty of manure or compost (or now charcoal) back into the land, plus crop rotation that includes legumes, is the only sustainable method of maintainging soil fertility; such an approach also has the advantage of increasing the soil's ability to hold water (see 2 above).
Oh, and one more little silver lining on a black cloud: increasing CO2 levels will INCREASE crop yields.
There are a huge number of problems, the list is almost endless. My point was just that there is no need to put fuel for tractors at the top of it.
You had me going until I got to that line WNC Observer. But at that point I knew you hadn't a fu**ing clue as to what the hell you were talking about. Just try growing corn, or cotton, or soybeans, or wheat without fertilizers and see what kind of yield you get.
Of course water and sunlight is important. But that sure as hell does not mean fertilizer is unimportant. Have you ever heard of Liebig's Law of the Minimum? You cannot grow anything without water, sunlight or the necessary elements in the soil. All of them are important and nothing will grow without them. If you don't have enough nitrogen in the soil, you will not get much of anything. That goes for potassium and phosphate as well.
Of course you could go back to organic farming, or pointed stick planting as they did many years ago. But you would go back to those yields as well. It is with the aid of chemical fertilizers that brought about the green revolution. And if those fertilizers go away, we would only be able to feed a tiny fraction of the people we feed today.
Ron Patterson
Who said without any? Who said unimportant? What I said was LEAST important. Of course soil fertility matters. But you can pour all of the fertilizers you want on the land, but if there is not enough water or sunlight, they will make no difference at all. Soil fertility must be maintained by adding plenty of manure & compost and crop rotation, that is the only sustainable way to do it, and if it isn't done, then of course crop yields are going to be pretty pitiful. Chemical fertilizers have been a convenient but unsustainable shortcut. Maybe using them has generated superior yields, but those are not sustainable yields. But there is no way that shifting from unsustainable to sustainable practices means that yields will disappear.
"But you would go back to those yields as well. It is with the aid of chemical fertilizers that brought about the green revolution."
Erm, I know a couple here who grow crops organically, and they would be the first to pull you up on this point. It took me all of 5 seconds to Google this:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
Crop yields from modern organic farming are often equal to or in excess of conventional farming.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
thats not definitive proof..
but oh well. believe what you want, the green revolution was simply industrializing agriculture. without the energy basis behind that industrialization we will go back to the pre green revolution level of food production if not less due to soil damage between then and now.
I agree that the vast availability of energy was probably the most important part in the green revolution, but that has nothing to do with my comment. Chemical (in the loose sense of argi chem fertilisers - as opposed to manure type) fertilisers are not necessary to maintain high yields.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
I hope everybody will keep in mind that a lot of those jobs dependent on cheap energy are best not done at all.
So how are those people gonna live when they lose those wortthless jobs? Better that they keep getting paid what they are paid and do nothing, than get paid doing what they are doing which is worse than nothing.
Examples? Almost all advertizing. Many manufacturing jobs resulting in worthless crap. A high proportion of office jobs. On and on. Just look around, notice the tons of entropy generation, and ask "did we need to do that?". No.
Worst of all. What really needs to be done ain't being done. What? Start with education and go on and on.
maybe we can make a transition from crap manufacturing to maintaiance of well engineered and manufactured products (like in the good 'ole days)
Because of the rate of change involved, adequate soil cover will be lacking on much of it.
True for permafrost, not so sure that is true for boreal forests (but their soil will be acidic and need lots of limestone)
>Global climate change should open up more northerly, better watered lands for cultivation to replace the arid lands that are running out of water; not only do northerly lands have more precipitation, they will also have less evaporation, so salinization will be less of a problem.
I very much doubt that, because northern regions weather will remain volatile limiting the growing season. There will still be late season cold snaps and early frosts that will inhibit crop yields.
>Oh, and one more little silver lining on a black cloud: increasing CO2 levels will INCREASE crop yields.
CO2 levels are rising in PPM. The small rise in CO2 levels doesn't significantly increase crop yields.
>Or we could all cut beef out of our diet and make up most of the difference right there. It wouldn't even be necesary to all become vegans - just cut out the beef and that will get us most of the way there.
Beef and other livestock can graze on marginal land that isn't suitable for farming. Today livestock are factory farmed because is easier and more economical, bu it doesn't have to operate that way.
>We really need electrified rail (large PV arrays in remote locations could provide the power, if most trains were scheduled to run during the day). Biodiesel could also fuel barges and ships for bulk transport of grains. As for the tractors themselves, the oilseeds could be grown and pressed right on the farm.
1. PV panels are extremely expensive and will become hideous expensive as energy prices soar. Few people understand how much pollution is generated and how much energy is consumed to make PV panels.
2. For Biodiesel farming, please read up on Rudolf Diesel's great biodiesel experiment and why it was abandoned. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a successful large scale farming operation using home-grown biodiesel without subsidation. Yes, I seen the articles about India farmers selling biodiesel. But much of the labor is done with cheap manual labor (pratical slave labor) and they don't consume any of the produced biodiesel for farming operations. They do not operate on a closed cycle. Despite huge diesel shortages in Africa, How come farmers dont simply make thier own biodiesel? Theorically Africa could be a food exporter if only the abandoned there fossil fuels ways! I also hear that there is a Rich Nigerian who wished to deposit a large sum of money in your bank account if you can kindly provide him with your back account information! He made a fortune by using biodiesel for farming!
Personally I am sick of all these wild ideas that people have in their heads that biodiesel, PV panels, Wind, etc are a solution. None of these are practical solutions. Instead of people telling everyone how things could work, how about actually trying it! I would like to see people actually try it for themselves instead of armchair coaching. I doubt anyone here that promotes biodiesel has even tried growing crops and pressing them to make biodiesel.
WInd turbines, HV DC transmission and pumped storage are all workable technologies that are cost effective (to a limited extent) today !
Minor modifications to economics and modest technological improvements will greatly expand the scope of these workable technologies.
For example, for the current price of electricity in Hawaii, I could design a system of wind turbines in Oklahoma, HV DC from there to a massive pumped storage complex around Chattanooga TN (one 2 GW there today) and from there another linked HV DC line to Florida. I might be able to do this for half of the current price of power in Hawaii ($0.32 / 2 = 0.16/kWh).
Best Hopes,
Alan
>WInd turbines, HV DC transmission and pumped storage are all workable technologies that are cost effective (to a limited extent) today !
For that to work you need:
A. Land that is Raised sufficient to create a kinetic potential and a place to drain the water into (aka River, lake or sea), and that can be configured to hold a large body of water.
B. An abundant source of water near by
C. An Abundant source of Wind (within a few hundered miles)
This rules out large sections of the US, because
A. Midwest is too flat and too dry
B. Western US already has water shortages.
C. Most of the Eastern US is heavily populated (aka suburbia) which leaves no room for constructing large man-made lakes or expanding existing ones.
There are few areas remaining to build storage facilities because most of the land that meets these requirements is already occupied. Fresh water is also used to supply agraculture and large cities.
Wind will never replace the majority of US electrical Production. I suspect it would probably max out at about 10% of current production.
Now all you need to do come up with another 150% to 170% of electrical production to move the US economy away from liquid and gas fossil fuels (aka to the electric economy instead of our current fossil fuel economy). Good luck.
As a lawyer, you show easily be able to recognize the uphill battle of displacing large groups of people and constructing new HV power lines over people's property, or trying to even build wind farms off the the coast because it "destroys the view, or kills birds" or a million other excuses people come up with.
It should be pretty obvious that nothing is going to be done until we start seeing national rolling blackouts and empty gas tanks. By then it will be too late and it still will take for every as politicans begin the finger pointing as usual and waste valuable resources on non-value projects.
IIRC, I was the one who informed you about the need to construct storage lakes to back up wind production. As we had a debate about the limitations of Wind power.
>For example, for the current price of electricity in Hawaii, I could design a system of wind turbines in Oklahoma, HV DC from there to a massive pumped storage complex around Chattanooga TN (one 2 GW there today) and from there another linked HV DC line to Florida. I might be able to do this for half of the current price of power in Hawaii ($0.32 / 2 = 0.16/kWh).
This would never work. Its way too complex and you have glossed over a huge list of issues that make this project impractical. Even if it could be made to work, Florida is only one of forty-eight states. What about California, Texas, the Mid-West, the Northeast, and the rest of the US's major population centers?