----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Aquaculture for energy
Jones Beene wrote:
Pretty fair credentials, I'd say... and he is right-on about the need to
move immediately into energy-aquaculture.
Well, if it works, okay -- maybe. But as I said, we should be extremely
cautious about large scale schemes that replace existing biota, especially
with monocultures. So far that has caused unending havoc in both land and
ocean ecosystems, such as the replacement of most fish with jellyfish
world-wide.
Point well taken. Live evolves and monocultures are vulnerable to sudden
wipeouts.
We can easily replace a substantial portion of petroleum use within
twenty years,
Or do you just change the place where the fuel is burned? Do you expect to
derive all that energy from wind and PV in 20 years without a massive
investment and construction?
We could easily replace 90% of it one year, starting NOW, using only
existing technology. Just do something like what FDR did in January 1942:
1. Tell the auto industry that we are in a state of war (which we sure
are), and order it to shut down immediately and retool. I mean close it
down that instant. FDR ordered told them not to sell a single car for the
duration of the war, and he confiscated their entire inventory for
military purposes.
But people were employed anyhow and stuff was built, draining resources.
2. Ban the sale of conventional ICE automobiles in the U.S., immediately.
3. Order the industry, both foreign and domestic, to supply only plug-in
hybrid vehicles that get at least 100 mpg during average commuting in 2007
and 8, and no less than 200 mpg after 2009.
Sounds good, but have you *properly* calculated the vast infrastructure
increase in electric power plans burning (?) to supply all those commuter
cars at night? A just what will you do about the essential network of long
haul trucking after you have banned ICEs? Will your edict disallow
automobile trips over 100 miles, the range of batteries? Oh yes, there are
hybrids, so the gasoline/ethanol infrastructure will be retained.
4. Destroy all remaining stocks of unfinished conventional ICE engines.
Including lawnmowers, motorcycles and water skis?
5. Ban the use of existing SUVs and other passenger vehicles that gets
less than 20 mpg. Confiscate and destroy them all. Pay the owners the
blue-book depreciated value only. Hey, there's a war on!
And in our diffuse communiuties, how will a low-wage earner be able to
afford one of the newfangled cars after his nil-value clunker is gone? Who
will pay his taxi bill? Or will you also mandate neew fleets of buses? Or
will the riderchip be too low to justify?
Problem solved. The U.S. would soon have enough excess oil production to
join OPEC. This is nowhere near as drastic as it sounds. Of course it
would cost billions, but nowhere near as much as it costs for us to
finance terrorism and war against ourselves. After we do this, we would
quickly earn back all the money it costs, in reduced fuel expenses alone.
Present political leaders do not have the guts to do things like this, but
Lincoln or FDR would. For that matter if I were president I would do it in
a heartbeat, and I would say -- as FDR did -- this is a war emergency and
I am acting as commander-in-chief. I think it would work and I think
whoever did it would be the most popular leader in the western world a few
years later.
Make no small plans, sez me.
This would also drastically reduce CO2 emissions, which NASA and the
Japanese press have headlined today.
- Jed
----------------------------------
There is no simple solution to this and in the long run a market economy
will have its painful way in the allocation of resources. The crux is that
the environment may change much faster that markets and customs can adapt,
inviting edicts of the type Jed suggests. We have a profound lack of wisdom
to deal with these situations.
The only long term hope I see in all this is in the BLP technology.
Mike Carrell
