BD, The ECOLOS - Tome 1

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 24/02/09, 21:23

Woodcutter wrote: is it me who take it out on people in this reflection:
Elec wrote: Hmm ... Presenting rapeseed oil-based agrofuels as "good for the environment" and "good for the wallet", you really have to dare! Agrofuels (whatever the sector) have a disastrous environmental and health impact, and they are very expensive. A person who seeks to preserve the environment and health (and that we can qualify as "green" even if the word is reductive and has taken on a particular connotation in France) of course does not use agrofuels and does not use an engine having 20% ​​of output in cycle of ordinary use [...]


There is of course no personal attack in this message. It is the belief that resorting to agrofuels is ecological which is attacked, it is completely the debate of idea.

I have every right to say (and many other experts have the same opinion) that agrofuels, whatever the sector considered (Ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, HVP, biodiesel) have a very poor yield ( less than 1%), that this has as a corollary a disastrous environmental impact, and that they constitute a dead end.

As you have every right to think otherwise and I respect your point of view. I'm not going to call you a "burner", like you did above, or a "little head" because I don't agree with you, it's a lousy technique to fall into it. invective.

Woodcutter wrote:the basis of the reflection is false


There you are right in the debate of idea (that said you do not demonstrate how this basis is false, so it is a worthless assertion).

Woodcutter wrote:on the other hand, it is an abusive generalization

There also you express your idea of ​​the subject, but it is a free affirmation, therefore worthless.

To grow oilseeds to get PVH, you use arable land, and a lot of arable land since the yield is 0,2-0,3%. The global UAA is limited. The world's population is increasing. 1/3 to 2/3 of the deforestation in recent years has been caused by the development of energy crops, according to a Stanford study.

For Jean Ziegler, expert, UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, "using land to produce agrofuels is a crime against humanity".
I completely agree with his analysis on this point.
Last edited by Elec the 24 / 02 / 09, 22: 13, 3 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 24/02/09, 21:54

Elec wrote:[...] I have the perfect right to say (and besides very many experts have the same opinion) that agrofuels, whatever the sector considered (Ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, HVP, biodiesel) have a very poor yield (less than 1%, which this has as a correlate a disastrous environmental impact, and that they constitute a dead end.
The shortcut that you make, and that I underline, is wrong.

Elec wrote:[...] As you have every right to think the opposite and I respect your point of view. I'm not going to call you a "burner", like you did above, or a "little head" because I don't agree with you, it's a lousy technique to fall into it. invective.
"Burne breaker", it is for your very haughty way of taking people and to believe that there is only you who can be right, that your ideas which can be the good ones ...

Like this for example:
Elec wrote:[...]
Woodcutter wrote:the basis of the reflection is false


There you are right in the debate of idea (that said you do not demonstrate how this basis is false, so it is a worthless assertion).

on the other hand, it is an abusive generalization

There also you express your idea of ​​the subject, but it is a free affirmation, therefore worthless.


The others are perhaps diplomatic enough not to tell you in the face ... Me not ...

The rest does not concern me.

PS: what is your old nickname on this site?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 24/02/09, 21:59

Woodcutter wrote: The shortcut that you make, and that I underline, is wrong.
Again, a free affirmation, therefore worthless.

what is your old nickname on this site?

My username on this forum is and always has been Elec. But you get out of the idea debate again and target the person. Finally, once again you are wasting your time: I don't care about your moods on my person and it's a lousy technique to sink into the invective.

it's for your very haughty way of taking people and believing that only you can be right, that your ideas can be the right ones

My approach is as follows: founded, coherent ideas, based on serious references interest me to the highest point, I research them and when I discover them, I feel enriched. Free / ideological / hollow claims don't interest me. Sorry if it annoys you and if it makes you lose control of yourself by sinking into the invective.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 24/02/09, 22:19

Elec wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:the basis of the reflection is false
There you are right in the debate of idea (that said you do not demonstrate how this basis is false, so it is a worthless assertion).

You talk about "rapeseed oil fuel" when the menf character says "... I ride in rapeseed oil"Which is confirmed by the fries at the bottom of the page (we don't make fries in biodiesel, as far as I know?)
Given the big impact differences between these two fuels, I consider that the basis of your thinking is (deliberately?) False.

Elec wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:on the other hand, it is an abusive generalization

There also you express your idea of ​​the subject, but it is a free affirmation, therefore worthless.
From a humorous staging showing an example of a gesture making it possible to reduce the environmental impact linked to the use of an older Diesel vehicle, you generalize on the use of agrofuels in indefinite circumstances by a population also not determined. It is for me very clearly an abuse, which has for other function only to bring stones to your very simplistic argument which takes in a few words: out of the electric, no salvation.

Elec wrote:To grow oilseeds to get PVH, you use arable land, and a lot of arable land since the yield is 0,2-0,3%. The global UAA is limited. The world's population is increasing.

That the world's population is increasing is a complete heresy, but also a taboo for many. But whatever, the ecosystem will regulate itself ...
You fall back into your fault never to qualify: who tells you that EVERYTHING must necessarily be done in a single way and for EVERYONE at the same time? It's just like your eternals "we should not choose a half solution"in the other post that you linked ... Who are you to decide that some solutions are half-solutions?

Then, weren't you the one who wrote about the algae that produces oil? Algae consume UAA?
Does jatropha consume UAA?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 24/02/09, 22:21

Woodcutter wrote:You talk about "rapeseed oil fuel" when the menf character says "... I ride in rapeseed oil"Which is confirmed by the fries at the bottom of the page (we don't make fries in biodiesel, as far as I know?)
Given the big impact differences between these two fuels, I consider that the basis of your thinking is (deliberately?) False.


Whether you use the oil directly (HVP) with an Elsbett type engine or trans-esterify it to obtain biodiesel, that does not change the problem: the overall performance remains poor (a little less poor with HVP).

To grow oilseeds to get PVH, you use arable land, and a lot of arable land since the yield is 0,2-0,3%. The global UAA is limited. The world's population is increasing. 1/3 to 2/3 of the deforestation in recent years has been caused by the development of energy crops, according to a Stanford study.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 24/02/09, 22:26

Elec wrote:
Woodcutter wrote: The shortcut that you make, and that I underline, is wrong.
Again, a free affirmation, therefore worthless.
Can you say anything else?
In all that you could show on these posts, it does not seem to me that the conclusion: "HVP (rapeseed) has a disastrous environmental impact"came out very strongly.

Elec wrote:
what is your old nickname on this site?

My username on this forum is and always has been Elec. But you get out of the idea debate again and target the person. Finally, once again you are wasting your time: I don't care about your moods on my person and it's a lousy technique to sink into the invective.
It's my big rabbit, it's called paranoia ... : Mrgreen:
Behind an informal question (because you remind me of someone), you see an "invective"! : Lol: You should better control your impulses, or you will lose control ... : Wink:

Elec wrote:
it's for your very haughty way of taking people and believing that only you can be right, that your ideas can be the right ones

My approach is as follows: founded, coherent ideas, based on serious references interest me to the highest point, I research them and when I discover them, I feel enriched. Free / ideological / hollow claims don't interest me. Sorry if it annoys you and if it makes you lose control of yourself by sinking into the invective.
: Mrgreen:

You should avoid writing the same word more than 3 or 4 times at so few lines of intervals, it seems that you are no longer in control and that you are sinking into the debate on the person.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 24/02/09, 22:27

Woodcutter wrote:In all that you could show on these posts, it does not seem to me that the conclusion: "HVP (rapeseed) has a disastrous environmental impact"came out very strongly.


Whether you use the oil directly (HVP) with an Elsbett type engine or trans-esterify it to obtain biodiesel, that does not change the problem: the overall performance remains poor (a little less poor with HVP).

To grow oilseeds to get PVH, you use arable land, and a lot of arable land since the yield is 0,2-0,3%. The global UAA is limited. The world's population is increasing. 1/3 to 2/3 of the deforestation in recent years has been caused by the development of energy crops, according to a Stanford study (Holly Gibbs et al, Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment).

- World demography: http://www.populationdata.net/

- Worldwide UAA: 1 million hectares

- Globally, two billion people are malnourished and 800 million undernourished
Last edited by Elec the 24 / 02 / 09, 22: 36, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 24/02/09, 22:32

Elec wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:In all that you could show on these posts, it does not seem to me that the conclusion: "HVP (rapeseed) has a disastrous environmental impact"came out very strongly.


Whether you use the oil directly (HVP) with an Elsbett type engine or trans-esterify it to obtain biodiesel, that does not change the problem: the overall performance remains poor (a little less poor with HVP).

To grow oilseeds to get PVH, you use arable land, and a lot of arable land since the yield is 0,2-0,3%. The global UAA is limited. The world's population is increasing. 1/3 to 2/3 of the deforestation in recent years has been caused by the development of energy crops, according to a Stanford study.


Hula! You weaken my friend, you just rewrite the exact same text to answer two different ideas! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

And in addition, you answer (voluntarily) next ... : Wink: Perhaps a stroke of fatigue?

A word of advice: finish your messages well before posting them, it doesn't make all these modifications afterwards very serious ...
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Elec
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 779
Registration: 21/12/08, 20:38




by Elec » 24/02/09, 22:37

You have a complete and well-argued answer: the central problem is the area limit of cultivable land. Whether you are using HVP or biodiesel, it doesn't change that limit, it is essential. With agrofuels, regardless of the sector considered, enormous areas are needed, given the mediocrity of the efficiency of converting solar energy into biomass (less than 1%). This point is put forward in the last French report on the subject "Agrofuels and the environment". I invite you to find out. Many American studies come to exactly the same conclusion.

The human population is growing rapidly. We are 6,5 billion, we will be 9 billion in 2050, and 2 billion people today do not have access to sufficient food.

In this context, using arable land (or worse, cutting forests) for energy crops (HVP, biodiesel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol) is absurd, irresponsible, and all the more absurd since we have much better solutions. , much less expensive and with an environmental balance very much better to ensure our travels.
Last edited by Elec the 24 / 02 / 09, 22: 48, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 24/02/09, 22:45

Elec wrote:You have a complete and argued answer: the central problem is the surface area of ​​cultivable land. Whether you are proscribing PVP or biodiesel, that does not change this limit, it is essential.

The human population is growing rapidly. We will be 9 billion in 2050, 2 billion human beings do not have access, as of today, to sufficient food.

So if I follow you, to prove to me that "HVP (rapeseed) has a disastrous environmental impact" you tell me :
1) there is not enough cultivable land
2) there will be nine billion humans in 2050.

Well, well, well ... 8) Indeed, it is clear all of a sudden, concerning the environmental impact of my rapeseed ... : Lol:
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 214 guests