Jed,
> Without fertilizer, insecticide, irrigation and other intense energy inputs
> agricultural productivity everywhere in the world plummet.
None of these depends on petroleum, and especially
not fertilizer. Even India exports nuclear plants
using an ammonia exchange processes for fertilizer production. It is
probably the very best use of nuclear energy since nitrogen is everywhere - and
these plants are easy to construct in the form of floating
factories.
> If we run out of oil before we find other
sources of energy, the cost of food will go sky high and agricultural
productivity will fall drastically.
That is why we need to develop Aquanol as a
replacement for oil. Now!
Yes. It will require fertilizer. Lots of it.
Megatons.
For instance the land in the Amazon is poor. But
they have plenty of sun and water and only need lots more nitrogen in the soil.
This is the perfect place for floating nuclear powered ammonium
plants.
This Amazon land can be made incredibly productive
on a sustainable basis as long as there is a big river there - IF and only
if we provide lots of cheap nuclear derived fertilizer - and it does not
necessarily go back into the soil first (hydroponics proves that).
Every gigawatt of nuclear energy devoted to
ammonium can return maybe 10 times that much energy in Aquanol, a desirable
liquid fuel. This is the key fact you and Jared and the other 'experts' seem to
be overlooking this very important detail here.
I would rather have 10 gallons of carbon-neutral
Aquanol to power my auto than one gallon equivalent of hydrogen, or the 1
gallon equivalent of electrical energy to recharge batteries. This is a big
ratio (and unfortunately just a guess for now). This ratio of replacement
fertilizer needed for Amazon intensive farming is speculation, and could be
higher or lower. But few things in industry are cheaper than nuclear ammonium
products - and I will bet that every pound of yearly
ammonium-whatever added will return at least 10 pounds of pure ethanol (20
pounds of Aquanol).
That soil is poor - as mentioned - but the whole
field of hydroponics proves that you **do not need soil at all.**
Let me repeat this for the benefit of Mike, Jed and
Mr. Diamond: YOU DO NOT NEED SOIL TO GROW BIOMASS. Sure it is nice to have it so
that the egrass doesn't float off - but there is nothing magic or sacred in soil
- hydroponics proved this years ago.
Give these plants enough sun, water, nitrogen
and a very small amount of water soluble minerals and they will - not just grow,
but flourish. Apparently Jared forgot to mentioned the hydroponics + nuclear
fertilizer angle. But he is not looking for real answers - just some added drama
to sell more hardbacks.
> The system depends upon cheap fossil fuel
energy, mainly oil.
Absolutely not! Cheap oil is history. Forget
about-it, as they say in Joisy.
If you do not have much coal - then hydro, nuclear
and wind are you best options. China has coal but they are moving rapidly to
hydro (best option even when you have to displace millions), and rapidly into
nuclear (best option outside the USA) and some wind (best option in the USA due
to over-regulation of nuclear, and the fact we already have maximized
hydro).
> It isn't just Pimentel. You are also contradicting Jared Diamond and
> thousands of agricultural experts, biologists and ecologists worldwide say
> that agriculture is not renewable, it is destroying the land, and that in a
> few hundred more years land everywhere will look like it does in Iraq --
I like to read Jared Diamond, and agree that he is
no racist.
That would hurt his book sales. But he should in no
way be considered to be a top-level scientist or agronomist either... basically
he is a good science-journalists, and a good writer - out to sell as many
books as possible by creating drama where there is no drama.... and, yes
the both of us can identify with that ;-0
... but for everyone of these "thousands" of
experts that you mention, there are just as many, or more, equally sane and
less-dramatic but non-alarmist agricultural experts, biologists and
ecologists worldwide who realize that humans have been intensely farming
some areas for thousands of years with no degradation in productivity.
Parts of Italy have been intensely farmed for 4000
years and in the Nile Delta for 7000 years (of course it gets naturally
replenished). You can replenish naturally or you can replenish with a floating
nuclear ammonium plants. BTW - don't bother to tell Jared - he is off on his
next expose and will not want to realize he has blown this one.
> the former Golden Crescent.
Do you mean the "Fertile Crescent" ?
Hey you can screw up any good farm land with bad
farming practices. That should be Jared's message - "don't use bad farming
methods" and replenish the land -
... but not "don't farm" or "don't farm
intensely."
Jones
