Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] the hydrogen argument

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Claude Genest <genest@together.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] the hydrogen argument
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:31:28 -0400

But perhaps your extrapolated numbers are based on the amount of energy we presently use ?

I always think of the example of scandinavia where they live at least as well as us using less than half our energy....

Claude
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 12:13 PM, robert waldrop wrote:

You are setting up a very big "IF" with your final paragraph.

What IF your vision isn't technologically and thermodynamically
possible?

It seems to me that a major point is missing, which is that with
hydrogen, and the thermal depolymerization fuel processes, you always
end up with LESS energy than it took to make them. So where does the
energy profit come from to make these processes possible? Complexity is
fine, but at some point there has to be something yielding a huge energy
profit to make that complexity possible. If in the absence of fossil
fuels, all of our fuel systems are net energy losers, then over time
they wind down to nothing.

Another point missing from thermal depolymerization/biofuel is that
world agriculture production is pretty much at peak capacity right now,
and it is entirely based on fossil fuels. There are estimates that
depending on the product, every calorie of agricultural product contains
7 to 12 calories of fossil fuels.

My spreadsheet says that to replace the world's oil production with
biodiesel made from soybean oil would require 33 billion acres of
soybeans. If we use palm oil, it would take 3 billion acres of palm
trees. If we use pecan oil, it would take 5 billion acres of pecan
trees. The land surface of the world is about 36 billion acres. So if
we devote all our cropland to making fuel and plastics, where do we grow
our food? Not to mention, where do we live, and where are the wild
places for the rest of creation?

I don't think we need to learn to do more with less, in fact we need to
learn to live with less. I know that's unpopular, especially for people
who live high energy lifestyles. If we don't learn how to live with
much less than we are presently accustomed to, it is likely that your
grand children will end up in the neolithic or worse, if indeed they
live at all.

The lives of billions of people are literally at stake. False hope is
false hope, and it causes people to make bad decisions, and that's what
people are betting on when they think that some combination of hydrogen,
solar, wind, hydro, and biofuel will make some approximation of our
present lifestyle possible for the entire world.

Robert Waldrop, OKC

Marimike6@cs.com wrote:
If we can make a full range of products out of agricultural end
products, as the thermal depolymerization crowd suggests, and make
vehicle fuels in the form of hydrogen out of renewable energy sources,
our grandkids will still be able to drive to work and enjoy a
reasonable quality of living. To me, that will be greatly superior to
everyone's having to merely learn to live without. The neolithic era
doesn't look as though it was all that much fun.

Mike Elvin
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture



Best Regards,
Claude William Genest

www.greenmountainpermaculture.com
Green Mountain Permaculture: Solutions, Sustenance, Sustainability

"What Permaculturalists are doing is the most important work being done on the planet."
David Suzuki

"The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a comfortable living from a small piece of land."
Abraham Lincoln

"Clever men solve problems, wise men avoid them."
Albert Einstein






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page