I think that it should be made clear in every conversation about
alternative fuel, and other alternative energies that none of them will
supplant petroleum products in quantity. In petroleum products we are
looking at 500 million years of accumulated sunlight stored deep in the
Earth that has been, at minimum, half burned up in the past 100 years,
think about it! So biofuels should be thought of in terms of a maximum
conservation measure ie for lighting, running essential industrial
processes ie iron smelting. We should think of a future without
airlines, without individual automobiles, without farm equipment etc.
Time to support those rare breeds of horses and oxen for future
survival. The only problem I had with Gore's movie was his dependence
on ethanol for a solution. The solution is to change our lifestyle, I
think that we should be looking to the Amish for direction and for
technology.
As far as Lovelock's idea of nuclear, my understanding is that we
currently have about 80 years worth of uranium if used at current
rates. The uranium source that is most available right now is from the
Former Soviet Unions' old nuclear weapons - it wouldn't hurt a thing if
we would deconstruct our own to fuel what nuclear plants exist right
now, but we are looking at a fuel source that is scarcer than oil when
we talk nuclear.
Why is it that no one wants to talk about moving to a more simple life
style? People had it pretty good in the 18th and 19th century without
all the petroleum, the problem then, as now, was political ineptitude
and greed leading to nationalistic war over territory and natural
resources. As we seem hell bent on destroying natural resources,
perhaps the ultimate outcome will be less reason to fight each other.
Self sustaining would seem to lead one to the idea that if we can't
provide for our needs for fuel then we shouldn't be using it - or is
that permaculture idea too radical for consideration.
Scott Pittman
Re: [permaculture] permaculture - Biofuel Illusion,
Scott Pittman, 07/09/2006