You seem resistant to considering the idea that while some of our Reactors, as recent as they are to HUMAN history, are today a couple generations old and facing 'Advanced Decrepitude'. They are now OLD sources in terms of the 2008 Energy Supply.

As a solution to our present energy situation, they are not at the head of the list (speaking of chronology, not priority) not the new kid in class, as ways have been developing to make other sources both increasingly economical, and less politically objectionable. In that conversation, Nuclear is not a NEW item on that agenda, and it's advocates are not the Avant Garde. They are an 'established' and 'historical' provider. This is the point Astyk seems to be making as well.

Meanwhile, the US installed 5gw of Wind Capacity last year. That's by all rights NEW, even if it's an age-old power source. Are proponents of Windmills and Solar Panels 'Reversalists' or 'Technophiles'? The point is that the term is overly vague, and most likely divisive.

Computers are 'New' and 'Modern'.. but if you're running Win3.1, you are clearly a wierdo who is stuck in the distant past. Right?

Bob

Actually, in the case of photvoltaics you have this backwards. Fermi built a pile in 1942. The transister was invented in 1947 by Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain. Nuclear power is a much less sophisticated means of power generation, as can be seen from the term pile. It's tolerances are mainly to do with the extreme hazards. The tolerances for PV are actually much higher owing to the need for extreme purity of the semiconductor (eight nines). Only recently has it seemed possible to relax these a bit. However, the development of PV promises much better EROEI compared to nuclear power and much reduced safety issues. That PV appears simpler has more to do with the greater elegance of the physics compared to the rather crude production of dangerous mid-mass radionuclei involved in fission.

Chris

I believe that the term that needs to be used is "appropriate technology". The discussion about which technology is new or progressive seems silly. Bicycles are a really old technology but we should be seeing more of these in the cities. As far as that goes, walking is as old as when we first stood upright but would be appropriate under our circumstances.

Whatever gets us through the day. Oh, it is very modern to sit on one's fat ass and drive one's Expedition to the store for a loaf of bread.

"Come on! That's 'belittlement through cuteness' and a very weird set of associations."

That point is marginal to the original argument, while it is central to the reply. That is the problem.

And this is why graphs, impressive as they look, don't tell the whole truth.

You know that oath they always get witnesses to make in courtoom dramas, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Well, the thing about statistics and graphs is that they tell the truth, but they don't tell the whole truth.

That's because a graph by its two-dimensional nature must have just a few data sources in it, while the "whole truth" must consider lots of different things, too difficult to graph sensibly. And dodgy data is often hidden in graphs, it's harder to spot than if it's just the actual data.

The whole truth about world grain production is that stocks are declining because grain is being diverted to feed livestock (the Chinese and Indians are eating more meat) and produce ethanol. Another truth is that the graph above presents world grain stocks in days as though people were eating nothing else, rather than as at the rate people are actually eating it.

Let's look at the world food outlook report from the FAO. At the end of 2007, the world had 6,600 million people and in FY 2006/7 was estimated to have produced 2,109 million tonnes of grains of all types. This is 320kg per person, providing 3,064kcal and 81g of protein daily if consumed directly; about 50% more than the average requirements of a moderately physically active adult (a Third World subsistence farmer, or a Western middle class guy who does some exercise). That is, more than enough.

However, of the 2,109 million tonnes of grain, only 997.5 were consumed directly, with 735.9 going to feed livestock, and 329 going to "other uses" (almost entirely biofuels).

Thus, what could be 320kg of grain per person and 50% more food than needed for basic energy and protein becomes,
- 151kg of grain consumed directly
- 112kg going to produce 40kg of meat
- 50kg going to produce 17lt biofuels
- 7kg added to stocks
which provides people with 1,892kcal and 61g of protein daily if consumed directly, just enough to keep people going.

Were there no biofuels, 329 million tonnes could have been added to world grain stocks, taking them from 427 to 756 million tonnes. Since the world consumes 2.73 million tonnes daily, the grain stocks would go from a 156 day supply to 277.

Obviously declines in meat consumption would have similar effects.

Over the past several years, per capita consumption of grain has not changed much. What's changed is that more and more goes to livestock and biofuels. While total grain production appears to be plateauing, there still remains more than enough food for everyone - provided we don't give it all to animals and put it in our fuel tanks.

The graph you give presents us with a 54 day supply. Dividing 427 million tonnes of stocks by 54 gives us 7.9 million tonnes a day, or 2,886 million tonnes annually. So your graph is claiming that world food stocks are consumed 2,886/2,109 = 137% times as fast as they actually are.

So in the first place their data are obviously wrong, as they place grain consumption at a rate 37% higher than it is. It would be like me saying that a stock of 1,200 million barrels of oil would only last the world ten days, implying a rate of 120Mbbl/day, considerably higher than the real rate of 85Mbbl or so.

Secondly, often "grain stocks in days" measure it by "if we ate nothing else, what do we have?" Which is like saying, "if we burned oil in everything, including coal and gas-fired power plants, it'd run out really fast!" Well, no shit. It seems fairer to measure "grain stocks in days" in terms of how fast the stuff is actually consumed.

Total grain consumption in all forms is 2,109/365 = 5.78Mt/day, so that a 427Mt stock would last 74 days. Grain consumption just for people directly is 997.5/365 = 2.73Mt/day, so that a 427Mt stock would last 156 days. Now, so long as grain stocks are not zero, what do they matter? Well, we like to have a reserve in case of big disaster somewhere, or sustained bad crop conditions in a country for a few years.

Say a cyclone hits some coastal country and makes 10 million people homeless, we want to feed them. Well, we've plenty for that. For large-scale climate problems - say a huge drought hits the US and Australia at the same time, reducing crops by 75% - well, then our stocks aren't enough. But then I think we'd be slaughtering livestock, telling ethanol-burning SUV drivers "sorry, no" and diverting the grain to people, yeah? Which would put us closer to the 156 days than the 74 days.

And this is why I'm never that impressed by graphs. Because often they don't tell the whole truth. And often wrong, outdated, speculative or just plain made-up data is hidden in them. As in this one.

If you go to the source of that calculation it looks like it's based on oil prices some time in early 2006 (ie around the $60 - $70 mark). Given that we are at $90, and will probably go higher (at least after the whole credit crunch thing is done)...

And, a little more news $1/gallon biomass based ethanol just came up on slashdot.

Chris