Re: growining interest/potential in biofuels.....

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:02:18 +0100, hummingbird
<OPRBMDQMZNLV@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

typed:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:46:01 +0200 'abelard'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:46:23 +0100, hummingbird
<OPRBMDQMZNLV@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

typed:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:35:46 +0200 'abelard'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:43:47 +0100, hummingbird
<OPRBMDQMZNLV@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

typed:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:32:51 +0200 'abelard'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4079
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4081
"In 2005, Brazil produced 16.5 billion liters of fuel ethanol (45.2
percent of the world's total) with the United States a close second at
16.2 billion liters, or 44.5 percent of the total. Ethanol provides
roughly 40 percent of Brazil's non-diesel fuel and 2 - 3 percent of
U.S. non-diesel fuel.

[article snipped]

Did you miss this other article on the WorldWatch website?:
"The Other Side of Nuclear Waste"
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4101

"The residents of Kara Agach, a mountain village in western Kyrgystan,
are receiving radiation doses as much as 40 times the internationally
recognized safety limit,

do you really expect adequate safety standards in kyrgystan...
it's a repressive dictatorship

Good try fraudy. They're American friends.

which is relevant to what?

That Kyrgystan's "repressive dictatorship" is not necessarily relevant
to the issue. What is likely more relevant is incompetence and lack of
national skill sets/investment/motivation to deal with the problems
effectively.

of course it is relevant...look at the safety records in canada and
australia....
clearly kyrgistan could employ western experts and keep decent
standards if they cared for their people....

Three Mile Island didn't happen under a repressive dictatorship.

3mi functioned safely...*and* that technology was decades ago.....
people dies learning to fly....there is no riskless activity...but nuclear
comes closer than most....

Development of nukes by such dumb states is one of my concerns.

then study...

presently you have no choice beyond massive expansion of nuclear power...

That maybe so. All I want to see is nuke stations effectively managed.

a reasonable objective

No, IMV it's an *essential* objective not just "reasonable".
Anything less would be intolerable.

that is just your fears talking....
obviously it is not sane to run *any* project sloppily....

you still have no choice....

Maybe but that doesn't negate the need for public support in Britain.
It's for the ruling executive to explain this to people in a democracy

i would prefer that....

and open up for honest public input before a decision.

most of the 'public' are ignorant.....many are fearful of what they don't
understand.....this does gradually improve.....
but waiting around is foolish....
problems are already closing in....

but much is moving forward now...it wasn't when i took up cudgels

even your options in the m.e. would not be so constrained if you had acted
earlier....

I've had enough of Mr Blair 'believing that he knows best'. That has
already got Britain into a number of big messes.

bliar is doing the right things when he absolutely has to....
no socialist can think well...socialism screws intelligence....
but so does market fundamentalism....

that even may compromise your bargaining power if you are incautious

?

if you have no/limited choices you cannot take a tough position
in negotiations....
sanity is avoiding getting into such situations in the first place...
once you're 'in it', your options are limited....

the harsh reality is that you will die (probably) in billions if you don't
get your fingers out

probably also the cleanest and cheapest energy available...

biofuels face immense problem and probably compete with food....

Don't buy that. For ethanol's expected use, it won't do this.

of course it will...corn serves as feed...
land has alternate uses....
agriculture is already very wasteful....

There's no "of course" about it. Although I accept that land used for
bio-crops cannot also be used for food growing at the same time, the
land area to be given over to growing bio-fuel crops for ethanol
production is not yet known and will depend on the quantities required
- taking into account alts - and the efficiency of the processing
plants etc. It may also be possible to use poor land currently unused
for food agricultural purposes.

Maybe someone will find a way of growing sugar cane underwater or on
floating platforms or in vertical layers 10 high! ;-)

every statement i make has the qualification...'with present technology'
i don't do nostradamus

biofuels may well contribute but it is neither straght-forward of certain.

It will certainly contribute, how much is as yet unknown. ditto nukes.

nukes clearly have the potential to remove energy constraints...

How so? Are we to have mini-nukes in our car boots?

no....probably not....

Marjorie Poops filling up at the local nuke station: "half-a-kilo
of uranium and check my pressure and waste output please."
Garage man: "sorry miss, you've got a radiation leak."
Marjorie: "what do I do about that?"
Garage: "run like hell."

bio-fuels are far from that position...

No other source will be any different, including nukes. It seems to
me that as oil depletes it will be replaced by a range of alt sources,
each with its benefit for particular uses - until a new single source
of energy is discovered/developed.

i expect and want a variety of sources....but nuclear power can
replace all current energy desires....maybe 'forever'
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html
if fusion establishes (as eventually it probably will) that will go beyond
forever....at least as far as humans are concerned

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.