Climate Policy

[Zenda]

Fourth, food supplies are artificially high due to the use of fossil fuels. "If the fertilizers, partial irrigation (in part provided by oil energy), and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels." (source)

We also use fossil fuels to make medicines. There are plenty of reasons not to burn everything that happens to give a lot of cheap warmth, yes.

[kandrathe]

The times with the USA being one of the largest grain exporters (most of it to 'enemy' Russia, oddly enough) are over, in case you missed that. Nowadays, the USA imports far more food as it can export.

Half true. The USA still produces a large share of agricultural products, but they compete in a global agricultural market. This graph in particular shows the extent that other countries have entered into the world cereal market.

There is the huge amount of imported foodstuff for your livestock to consider, yes. Don't you know that 'growing' one Kg meat can take 5 to 30 times the amount of land needed to grow a Kg of grain? No, that's not the size of the pastures they are in.

Well, YES, I did know. My little sister is a vegetarian. That was a side effect of her watching us butcher animals on the farm. The statistic you want to look at is protein per acre.

[begin dissertation on raising prime beef cattle]
My experience in raising beef cattle was a little different, granted that we bought about half the grain needed to raise them. I raised beef cattle (20 per year) for ten years when I was young to raise money for college. The total land use was 80 acres (20 for hay, 20 for corn, 20 for pasture, and 20 for miscellaneous high protein grains that we bought). I also used non-grain supplements (vitamins and minerals). In essence, I used the Joe Weider program to raise my beef cows. His method is to continuously break down muscle tissue and keep a high availability of amino acids for repair in the bloodstream (high protein diet). One key to success is to find the "Arnold Schwarznegger" of cow genes. I also used the hybrid effect by mixing three wide and tall bovine breeds (females were 1/2 black and white Friesian Holsteins that expressed a large udder, and Hereford. Males were Charlet). I would breed my brood cows usually getting 1 or sometimes two calves, then trade new born calves from the local dairy farmers for breeding services with my bull.) This way, each brood cow having a "milk cow" udder, would support raising 4 or 5 calves each. (plus provide fresh milk for the farm when the calves are weaned). Another key to success was exercise, so I built them a huge turnstile to fit 12 at a time (I should have had a generator on it:)). There are other success factors, like land management, veterinary care, waste management and insect control. We were early adopters of minimum tillage, and biological remedies in lieu of pesticides and herbicides. It was a small farm, with some very brainy farmers experimenting on increasing productivity.

I was actually banned from the 4-H cow show because my cows were so huge (still a sore spot with me). At 1 year old, a typical steers dressed weight is about 700 lb. Mine weighed on average 1300 lb. So, using an intensive method, I was able to raise the protein per acre to (20 x 1300) / 80 = 325 lb / acre. This is near the same production for soybeans or rice. This is based on a good agricultural year on our farm, so in poor agriculture years, we did buy more hay and grain from areas not hit by drought, so it might be fair to average it down a bit. If I were to do it again, I would look to buying high protein waste products from fermentation plants (ethanol, or beer) as the base for their feed (and I would design the barn to be cleanable with a Bobcat).

[kandrathe]

It just the result of your faulty assumptions and wrong approach.

You just need to look around at projects (or here) to see that I am spot on. My estimates are higher, since I don't live in a particularly sunny area. However, I do live in a particularly windy area, so it might make more sense for our community to invest in wind power. (It would make more sense to use a distribution of larger 1.5MW units for every 200 homes in a community). The two biggest mistakes that people make when looking at that 1000 W/m2 of potential sunlight is that due to inclination, clouds, and atmosphere, a very small portion of the potential is procurable, and they assume that solar panel are 100% efficient in procuring what does hit them. It's more like 20% of 20%, rather than the panacea you expect.

Don't you have any feeling for numbers?

Well, yes I do.

Allright, let's calculate backwards. One Watt is 1 Joule/Second, and 1 Wh is 3600 Joule. If you need 20 kWh per day, you need 20*3600*1000 = 72.000.000 joules per day. If $3 gives you 1 joule/second for 8 hours a day (your winter conditions), it would yield 1*8*3600 = 28.800 Joules per day. So, you would need 72000000/28800 = 2500 units of $3, which is $7500. Which is 3 times the $2500 we had earlier, like I predicted.

If you've looked at the prices of solar panels, then you would know that $2500 would buy about 3 or 4, 130 watt panels. Hardly enough to generate 20,000 watt hours. I submit there is an error in your calculations and assumptions. More likely, $40,000 for solar panels (validated by the costs other people report) is a fair number.

Well, I guess that shows you are wrong too. This person has the following conclusion: "So our estimated annual power bill will drop from about $4,400 a year to less than $1,100 a year, with the average cost per kWH dropping from 25 cents to 6.3 cents. The payback time, assuming energy costs don't spike steeply, is a little under nine years."

Or, they are wrong and full of wishful thinking. One part I omitted from my calculation was that they sell their excess energy back to the grid, and borrow from the grid when they don't produce enough. This still requires you to maintain a grid. Any rational level of thinking should lead the enlightened to conclude that large centralized plants distributing power through the grid is more efficient use of resources, than many decentralized tiny power plants. This same phenomena is exhibited in computing, where there are competing strategies for centralization and decentralization. There are upsides and downsides in both strategies, so a hybrid approach is best, although I would subscribe to a manageable number of 1000-5000 MW generating facilities.

[kandrathe]

We also use fossil fuels to make medicines. There are plenty of reasons not to burn everything that happens to give a lot of cheap warmth, yes.

Yes, I am concerned about non-fuel uses of petrochemicals. It's equally silly to burn food for fuel.

[Zenda]

Well, YES, I did know. My little sister is a vegetarian.

I'm glad she convinced you, but why do you proceed then, by giving another nifty calculation to 'proof' you can grow 325 lb of protein per acre, and saying that's nearly the same as for soybeans or rice? Isn't that a contradiction?

Well, your little sister is still right. Bulls are not 100% protein, for one thing.

I do appreciate your efforts to show how brains, combined with adoption of minimum tillage, and biological remedies in lieu of pesticides and herbicides, can compete with more widely spread methods. Not sure it made much impression on McDonalds, though.

[Zenda]

You just need to look around at projects (or here) to see that I am spot on.

Not sure what you mean by being spot on. These are quotes from those links:

"It's true that we live in warm, sunny California, which has some of the best rebates and tax incentives for going solar in the nation. But wherever you live, you can benefit from energy-efficiency and renewable-energy upgrades to your existing home and become part of the solution to global warming."

"If you divide it up, what you’re paying every month for solar power for the next 25 years will be less than what you’d pay the utility company in that same time."

If you've looked at the prices of solar panels, then you would know that $2500 would buy about 3 or 4, 130 watt panels. Hardly enough to generate 20,000 watt hours. I submit there is an error in your calculations and assumptions. More likely, $40,000 for solar panels (validated by the costs other people report) is a fair number.

You made the assumptions, and also the errors in calculation. Not me.

Allright, let's take a look at this more realistic example.

The Sharp solar panel costs $648.00 and has a capacity of 130 Watt. That's about $5/W, quite different from the $2/W you assumed, btw. Earlier you mentioned that the usual costs of power are $0.12 per kWh. That seems a lot less as the number mentioned in the article you gave, but let's take it for granted. At full capacity a single solar panel produces 130 Watt, so it would take 1000/130 = 7.7 hours of full capacity to produce 1 kWh. The solar panel costs $650, which is the same as the price of 650/0.12 = 5417 kWh. If it took 7.7 hours to produce 1 kWh, it would take 7.7*5417 = 41711 hours to 'produce' the price of the panel. To completely earn back our investments and start getting the energy for nothing after 20 years, we'd need 41711/(20*365) = 5.7 hours of sunshine per day. That's assuming 0% output for the rest of the day.

It should be clear that spending $40.000 instead of $650 does not really affect the needed 5.7 hours of sunshine. That's why those reports you mention still conclude it is a profitable solution.

[Zenda]

The USA still produces a large share of agricultural products, but they compete in a global agricultural market.

Are you sure that link is correct? It leads to a page titled "The Environmental Food Crisis - The Environment's Role in Averting Future Food Crises".

It does have a chapter The role of diet change, so I guess that makes it on-topic nevertheless.

"As nearly half of the world’s cereal production is used to produce animal feed, the dietary proportion of meat has a major influence on global food demand (Keyzer et al., 2005). With meat consumption projected to increase from 37.4 kg/person/year in 2000 to over 52 kg/person/year by 2050 (FAO, 2006), cereal requirements for more intensive meat production may increase substantially to more than 50% of total cereal production (Keyzer et al., 2005)."

Btw, regarding possibilities for efficiency, from the chapter Food from meat we learn that 8% of the world calorie intake requires 1/3 of all arable land to produce animal feed.

[Concillian]

Again, as I see there are two simple explanations (not that this is a simple problem); A) CO2 rises linearly with the seemingly linear increase of small levels of GHG's released by humans for the past 300 years, orB)CO2 rises with an increase in temperature due to a reduced ability of the environment to sequester it. So I think that is the $10,000 Climatologist question; which came first, the CO2 rise, or the temperature rise?

If the temperature rise came first, and caused CO2 to start rising, it did so with remarkably close proximity in time to the start of the industrial revolution.

I feel I must reiterate the astoundingly low probability of this coinciding with what is a rather obvious trigger event with significant scientific understanding and explanation to back it up (steam engine --> people start burning fossil fuel at an alarming rate --> burning fossil fuel releases significant quantities of CO2 --> CO2 build up in the atmosphere is a result of these events)

I guess I don't fully understand the logic you're employing here. Can you explain in any way other than "maybe nature decided to change at the exact same time that mankind also created what most people would consider to be a 'trigger event'?" I mean is there more to what you're suggesting than "maybe there was some cosmically unlikely coincidence?"

[kandrathe]

If the temperature rise came first, and caused CO2 to start rising, it did so with remarkably close proximity in time to the start of the industrial revolution.

I'm not suggesting or implying anything other than what I said. One might theorize though that with the ending of the little ice age, agriculture became more effective once again with a corresponding population rise. This led to more deforestation, and with the advent of conquistadors, and the knowledge explosion of the enlightenment, this population was primed to begin exploiting natural resources including wood, coal, and eventually oil.

Again, it seems remarkable to me that it is linear, given the variable of transitions of different sorts of fuels, and different sorts of combustion, eruptions, and massive fires. Then there was the advent of massive transportation, jet air planes and the automobile. Nothing during the massive ramp up of production during WWI or WWII, and generally no blips, no dips, no spikes. Weird.

[kandrathe]

Btw, regarding possibilities for efficiency, from the chapter Food from meat we learn that 8% of the world calorie intake requires 1/3 of all arable land to produce animal feed.

Only if you feed your beef the same food you would feed people. As I indicated in my dissertation of raising beef cows. You can raise Grade AAA beef with a minimal diet of corn, pasture, non-human digestible veggie protein, vitamins, minerals. Farmers are lazy and tend to think that the best food produces the best beef. Not true. And, there is no need for using steroids, or growth hormones using my methods.

My next project I think will be fish farming. :)

[kandrathe]

I'm glad she convinced you, but why do you proceed then, by giving another nifty calculation to 'proof' you can grow 325 lb of protein per acre, and saying that's nearly the same as for soybeans or rice? Isn't that a contradiction?

Why do you think she convinced me of anything. I eat some meat, but mostly poultry.

Well, your little sister is still right. Bulls are not 100% protein, for one thing.

Which is why I used dressed weight. Most everything in the dressed cow is used from hide, to organs, to bones.

I do appreciate your efforts to show how brains, combined with adoption of minimum tillage, and biological remedies in lieu of pesticides and herbicides, can compete with more widely spread methods. Not sure it made much impression on McDonalds, though.

I thought they obtained theirs from Argentina.

[kandrathe]

Not sure what you mean by being spot on.

Yes, and your continuing to ignore the actual costs while focusing on the wet dreams of some early solar adopters. They have no proof of their savings, nor of the lifespan or maintenance costs of their systems.

You made the assumptions, and also the errors in calculation. Not me.

So you keep saying, and yet do little proving.

Allright, let's take a look at this more realistic example.

Yes!

The Sharp solar panel costs $648.00 and has a capacity of 130 Watt. That's about $5/W, quite different from the $2/W you assumed, btw. Earlier you mentioned that the usual costs of power are $0.12 per kWh. That seems a lot less as the number mentioned in the article you gave, but let's take it for granted. At full capacity a single solar panel produces 130 Watt, so it would take 1000/130 = 7.7 hours of full capacity to produce 1 kWh.

Well, it depends on two other factors. The strength of the sun at that time, and the efficiency of the panel in converting that solar radiation into power. 130 is the maximum capacity, not the operating level. If you happened to get 200 watts of sun it would give you 130, but if you are getting 65 watts of sun it only gives you 65.

The solar panel costs $650, which is the same as the price of 650/0.12 = 5417 kWh. If it took 7.7 hours to produce 1 kWh, it would take 7.7*5417 = 41711 hours to 'produce' the price of the panel. To completely earn back our investments and start getting the energy for nothing after 20 years, we'd need 41711/(20*365) = 5.7 hours of sunshine per day. That's assuming 0% output for the rest of the day.

What is .12? Is that the cost of power from the energy company? 7.7 is probably wrong from what I wrote above. Also, assuming that calculation is correct, that would be 5.7 hours of sunshine on every one of the 365 days over 20 years. I think we'd die of thirst and crop failure.

That's why those reports you mention still conclude it is a profitable solution.

They hope it is profitable, but they do not know yet. Some other points on those studies; California is a better place to use solar, its cooler on the coast where the people live, they need less heat year around, and they get really good sun most every day after the marine layer burns off.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So you keep saying, and yet do little proving.

Which is what makes him a troll and makes a discussion with him an exercise in futility. He can spout more unsubstantiated ignorance in a minute than a panel of experts can quash in a day. Remember Mark Twain's dictum.

BTW: Solar generation of electricity, not a good idea, yet -- but getting there (especially if there's a utility rebate). Heating and hot water -- good idea, even now, even up North.

--Pete

[swirly]

BTW: Solar generation of electricity, not a good idea, yet -- but getting there.

That is about where my thoughts are with Solar power as well. There are a couple of new developments which intrigue me and make me consider it more as an option. Them being so new though also makes me realize that none of it is going to be here for a while still. The two developments I mainly mean are the solar concentrator work from MIT (link) which goes where windows are now currently (and so a space generally thought not usable for solar collection) as well as printable solar panels (link) which is cheaper than traditional panels (though less effecient as well). They both clearly have many things to work out (life span and durability not the least of the issues), but in my mind it certainly adds the "but getting there" to what you said.

[Concillian]

I'm not suggesting or implying anything other than what I said.

So you're sticking with massively improbable coincidence?

Again, it seems remarkable to me that it is linear

Look at the graph again, it's not linear, there is definite curvature since after 1750: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...400kyr.png

The keeling curve is roughly linear, but that's only 50 years. A small portion of an exponential curve looks rougly like a straight line unless near the origin. But still, it could be pretty linear, especially when you look at the next piece of information...

Compare the CO2 curve previously linked to the fossil fuel usage curve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_C...pe_to_Y2004.png

Note that both curves seem to sharply increase around 1950, and from 1950 to the 2000s is a fairly linear increase... of both curves. There appears to be a very strong cause and effect relationship, and that relationship makes perfect scientific sense. Which is why I'm totally baffled as to why anyone would choose the massively improbable coincidence over well founded and understood science that appears to point to a very strong cause and effect relationship.

[kandrathe]

Which is why I'm totally baffled as to why anyone would choose the massively improbable coincidence over well founded and understood science that appears to point to a very strong cause and effect relationship.

I'm still skeptical, and unwilling in almost all cases to rely on correlation to indicate causality.

[kandrathe]

Heating and hot water -- good idea, even now, even up North.

Yes, I agree.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but in my mind it certainly adds the "but getting there" to what you said.

There are some 'solutions' currently available, link,, but the viability and economics are unclear. From an economic standpoint, they are probably worth while, but that is because of the incentives:

Current incentives for PV:
30% Federal energy Tax Credit based on installed system cost.
Washington State Incentive of 15-54¢ per kWh that your system produces.
Renewable Energy Credits (REC’s) that fluctuate in price from 2-20¢ per kWh your system produces.
Sales Tax Exemption.
An increase in home value of $20 for every $1 your system saves you annually.
Accelerated system depreciation over 5 years for businesses.

If they were really that good a deal, I don't think they would have to be wrapped in that much tinsel.

--Pete

[Zenda]

Which is why I used dressed weight.

According to this paper, dressed weight is generally assumed to be 63% of the live animal's weight. So if the dressed weight was 1300 pounds, your 1 year old animals would have weighted 1300*100/63 = 2063 pounds. Mature bulls normally range between 1000 and 2000 pounds, is it not?

The amount of protein in pure meat is not 100% either. Most diet sites will give you numbers between 4% and 8%, but it can be as low as 2%.

But I'm just a city boy and hardly touched a cow in my life, so don't let this keep you from publishing your 'dissertation' :lol:

[Concillian]

I'm still skeptical, and unwilling in almost all cases to rely on correlation to indicate causality.

circumstantial evidence is reason to be skeptical.

However, when that circumstantial evidence is backed up by a strong scientific explanation which doesn't have to be "bent" in any way to explain that the circumstantial evidence makes sense, the circumstantial evidence moves to extremely compelling.

When the alternative explanation is maybe something in nature changed, so now the scientific theory, which fits pretty much perfectly, is not valid and what we really have is some cosmically improbable coincidence of events to make it look scientifically valid, well then the scientific explanation becomes virtually iron clad. Look at the supporting evidence. For a government to discard all that and bank on all of that being some massive coincidence is irresponsible to the people they are governing.

There is a time to be skeptical, but when the option is strong circumstantial evidence vs. some low probability random chance, my skepticism lies with the low probability random chance. I think you'll find a very small group of informed supporters are on that side of the fence with a larger group of under-informed supporters.