[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote:

"We have sun, tide, and ground heat that will last for thousands of  
centuries... What energy is available?  A flat, black steel plate will
maintain  
170F to 250F all day...

The question of "how much do we need?"  can miss the whole solution."

Okay, that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. When the human
population was been small enough and our technology primitive enough that,
in spite of our best efforts to devastate the environment, we could not; we
didn't need to know how much we needed to take from our environment or what
the impact of our choices might be. 

For example, the plains Indians drove whole herds of buffalo off of cliffs,
killing hundreds at a time, when they needed and could make use of only a
few of them. But, with so many buffalo roaming the plains, it didn't matter.
Our local Indians set fire to the forests to burn out the underbrush, making
it easier to shoot game. Frequently the fires jumped into the crowns of the
trees, destroying whole tracts of forestland, but they weren't burned often
enough to destroy the forests. Indeed, it's likely they simply augmented the
essential role of fire in the natural life cycle of the forest. 

Today those acts would be criminal. Today we have so drastically reduced
critical resources and there are so many of us clamoring for what's left I
think that figuring out how much we need to take is the central question. I
believe that to say offhand that they "...will last for thousands of
centuries..." invites the same sort of thinking that encouraged people to
cut down forests to burn the wood or to pump oil to run our machines without
concern is exactly what led us to our present crisis. 

Many of the solutions being promoted now have caused disasters of their own
already. 

Here in Oregon we've seen the problems trying to protect riparian habitat
once hydroelectric dams are built. It's such a serious problem we've even
given up on hydroelectric power on some rivers to protect the wildlife. 

Wind energy farms only remove a miniscule amount of energy from the
environment, yet we are already struggling with "micro-climate" changes
around those farms that are disrupting food production and wildlife habitat.
We need to understand them better if we are to use wind energy successfully.


The solar farms in Arizona have destroyed habitat. The desert is a living
place as much as the forests of Oregon, but when huge tracts of land are
shaded from the sun, those animals die. So far, it's miniscule compared to
the huge expanse of desert. People ask "who cares about a few scorpions and
snakes?" I submit that we're repeating the mistakes of the past if we ignore
those concerns today. 

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get my point. Until we establish how
much we need, we don't know which solutions come with acceptable costs and
we don't know which possibilities for the future offer the most promise.

But most important of all, since we all must make sacrifices today because
of our energy shortages, it helps people understand the value of those
sacrifices and the importance of looking at alternatives. Sure, most of our
current sacrifices are monetary. We pay more for gasoline, heating oil,
natural gas and electricity as they become more scarce. But that's surely a
sacrifice when those dollars can't be applied to educating children,
providing healthcare, and saving for the future. 

Few people today make those sacrifices thinking they are providing for a
better future. Indeed, everything we hear today is that, in spite of best
efforts, we're losing the energy battle. We'll eventually live in the dark
and the cold while our food crops wither and die under the effects of global
warming. If we want people to react positively, they need to know what to do
to succeed, and that begins with answering the question, "How much energy do
we need to thrive?" 

Ron D'Eau Claire 




-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:02 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby



On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> ...
> The problem reminds me of a bunch of people trying to rappel down a
> cliff face with only a makeshift rope. One says to the other, "I  
> think this rope is strong enough. Let's tie it off here, you hook  
> on and start down and we'll see."
>
> His friend says, "Wait a minute! Can't we test the rope first to
> see if it's strong enough before I'm hanging 1000 feet above the  
> bottom of this cliff?"
>
> I'm suggesting we test the rope first rather than hoping it's
> strong enough. I think that if we do that, even an approximation,  
> we'll have a lot more people willing to risk the trip down off the  
> cliff.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>

I don't want the rope to fail with people on it either.  In this  
parable we differ because you want to check to see if the rope is  
"strong enough".  Even if it is true, I don't want to hear, "it isn't  
strong enough because our heaviest person is 200 pounds and the rope  
won't hold 200 pounds".

I am a technician, I want to know how many pounds it will hold and I  
want to know its length, because that tells me something useful.

Given the length and strength of the rope we can tailor it to the  
situation.  If the rope only holds 120 pounds and is 100 feet long,  
we can safely lower someone less than 120 pounds to a ledge within  
100 feet of the top.  Or we can double the rope and lower 240 pounds  
to a ledge 50 feet from the top.  Or, we can triple the rope and  
lower 360 pounds to a ledge 33 feet from the top.   When we know the  
limits of the rope we can look to see if there are ledges on the  
cliff at the necessary places.  We don't have to leave the "big  
fella" behind because the rope won't hold him.

We have sun, tide, and ground heat that will last for thousands of  
centuries.  They support wind, rivers and plants as potentially  
sustainable energy sources.  We have coal, oil and nuclear as limited  
stockpiles of dense energy.

The question of "how much do we need?"  can miss the whole solution.   
During a day in the winter, parts of the Sahara Desert can vary  
between 32F and 100F.  So how much energy is needed to heat at night,  
and how much energy is needed to cool during the day?  How many  
nuclear power plants or solar panels are needed to provide the  
electricity to run the air conditioning and space heaters like our  
buildings here?   How much wood or oil is needed to provide the heat  
for cooking?  How much electricity is needed for lighting?  Wrong  
questions.

What energy is available?  A flat, black steel plate will maintain  
170F to 250F all day.  The average winter temperature is 66F if you  
have enough thermal mass.  The sun shines 11 to 13 hours every day.   
They have plenty of available energy, their biggest energy issue may  
be based on their requirement to pump water or for transportation.

Solutions appropriate to the local climate, and consumption based  
upon sustained supply of energy.

David



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet