Letters to the Editor
curmudgeon2
Published Letters: 414 Editor's Choice: 64
-
Bio-diesel and corn alcohol
[Read the article: Something fishy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Big-ag is way ahead on this issue. Cargill, ADM, et al, are perfectly aware that omega-6 oils are on their way out in our diets. They are positioning themselves to save us from Arab oil through bio-diesel, and alcohol fermented from evil corn sweetener. In the meantime, of course, they will continue to push them as hard as possible into our diet. We figured it out a few years ago, and threw out all the omega-6 oils, and only keep olive and coconut oil in our house. We occasioanlly grind up flax seeds and put it into stuff. But we take lots of ALA, DHA, and EPA supplements. I am old enough to remember when margarine was touted for its health benefits. A good friend, who appeared to have his life in good shape, ate corn oil on his cereal instead of milk because of its health benefits. He committed suicide. I attribute it to his outlandish omega-6/omega-3 ratio. When your brain is made of omega-6 and trans-fats (as most Americans brains are) you will be a little (or a lot) nutty. We suspect the Romans nuttiness was due to lead poisoning. We are just as screwy. The uses of Science are seldom in the public interest when it might interfere with profit. CSPI was instrumental in putting us on a trans-fat diet.
-
Texas rest stops
[Read the article: Where have you gone, Edward Abbey?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Travelling Texas interstates and stopping in their abysmal rest areas typifies the state. They are, as Abbey described Texas, vulgar and ugly. Being used to the beautiful interstate rest areas in the Northwest it was a rude shock to visit the noisy and dirty ones in Texas. Is the rest of the US heading that way?
-
Thousands of power plants
[Read the article: Calculating the global warming catastrophe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In order to maintain a semblance of our civilization we need to produce things like aluminum, steel, titanium, etc. These things require lots of concentrated power. Steel melting furnaces require around 60 megawatts each. Bigger furnaces use less power per unit of output, so decentalization would increase our use of energy. A lb of titanium requires about 10 kilowatt hours of energy. The silicon that solar panels need is made in large electric arc furnaces. The minimum energy required per unit of output is a thermodynamic given. The larger the production unit the closer you can get to the thermodynamic minimum. So you need perhaps hundreds of megawatts available in a space of only a square mile or so. The amount of copper needed to deliver that power from widely scattered sources boggles the mind. Of course the copper would require its thermodynamic minimum energy to make. So we will always need a lot of big powerplants, preferably nuclear.
Any of you liberal arts majors who might argue that we can do better than what thermodynamics says we can do are arguing from a deep reservoir of stupidity. Get an elementary thermo text and try to read and understand it before shooting off you mouths or keyboards. In fact a reasonable understanding of thermo by a large percent of our citizenry would really help in fixing our future. But that is a lot harder than trying to be literary.
-
To Axordil
[Read the article: Calculating the global warming catastrophe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, of course we can get along without steel. Reduce the population to a few hundred miilion or less, live on natural materials, and we can do it. But, given a choice most of us would opt for at least a somewhat technological civilization. One of these days we're going to get a supervolcano, or a large asteroid strike. The effects or prevention of in the case of the asteroid, could only be mitigated by high technology.
BTW, I should have mentioned the three laws of thermodynamics in my last post (paraphrased into liberal arts language).
1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
You know a liitle too much about what some scientists were saying 150 years ago, but not enough about the real history of science. The blast furnace was not "scientifically" understood until the 20th century, long after it was producing millions of tons of steel. Steel has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. So I would not be too sure that it can be replaced or done without. Wooden plows will work, but one man and his jackass can only do a few acres. Also, technology is fun for those who can do it. Don't deny us our simple pleasures, just because you probably can't.