🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D6Av6z.MFD@sactoh0.uucp>, Kim A. Berry <kberry@sactoh0.uucp> wrote:
>In article <3lcqfi$6c7@csusac.ecs.csus.edu> taylorj@ecs.ecs.csus.edu (Jon M. Taylor) writes:
>>In article <ndlxsD5yGw6.Hy9@netcom.com>,
>
>>	Well, I figure by that point most (if not all) of the land
>>currently used for pasturing cattle will be converted to growing corn for
>>methanol production.  Right now, we feed the cows off the same land that
>
>I have another concern. Does anyone have some insight on this?
>Currently oil is required to produce fertilizer to grow our corn. 
>If we convert to mentanol, what % of the mentanol produced would   
>have to be used to produce fertilizer to continue growing corn?
>(Hint: If it is over 100%, we have a problem.)

	Well, I just finished talking about this to a biochemist, as he
sez that with the current methanol production methods it **IS** over 100%. 
However, he also told me that genetically-engineered bacteria that can
digest cellulose into *ethanol* (not methanol) are getting close (a couple
of years) to working, and that once we have *that*, percentage above will
drop to WELL below 100%.  
	Not only that, but since all plants are primarily composed of
cellulose, you could use any kind of plant at all as an energy source! 
When this comes to pass, the world's energy problems are essentially over
- the land area of the entire earth that will support any kind of plant
growth becomes a sustainable, renewable energy source.  It'll be like
covering 95%+ of the land area of the earth with solar cells.  We'll have
more freakin' energy than we know what to do with!
	Given this, I'm going to have to revise my estimate of the
worldwide human population carrying capacity upwards to around 50 billion
or so (though I still maintain that it'll top out far below this, probably
at 15-20 billion).  I daresay that this gives the entire world more than
enough time to complete the demographic shift I spoke of earlier.  It
appears as though the optimistic technological futurists were even righter
than I though, and that the environmental doom-criers were even wronger. 

>>feeds humans - if we get rid of the cows, not only do we get a 90% higher
>>return rate on energy invested in growing the same crops, but a lot of the
>
>Restating original question. Anyone know the ratio of energy invested
>vs energy returned growing corn? (Not counting the solar energy, of
>course.)

	See above.

>>land that was used for pasturing cows (and sheep, chickens, etc. as well) 
>>can be use to grow methanol-producing biomass.  We'll have to get used to 
>>being vegetarians of course, but I think that's a given already.
>
>... and a little "Soilent Green" thrown in for variety....
		   ^^^^^^^ that's "Soylent".

	A nice little added bonus of using ethanol as the world's primary
energy source is that you get water and carbon dioxide back when you burn
it instead of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and a whole variety
of miscellaneous hydrocarbons like you get when you burn petroleum
products.  You also don't have to build large, smell, polluting
refineries. 

>Getting back to the "population issue." It's worth noting that if
>the U.S. had considerably fewer people, all our energy needs could
>be met by clean hydro-electric. 

	CONSIDERABLY fewer.

>But a lot of people don't get it. Our gov't, for instance, is 
>granting citizenship at the rate of 1500 per day! Anyone been to
>L.A. Lately? Would you say?
>
>__ There is probably a sufficient number of people in L.A.

	Sufficient for what?  LA has a far lower population density than 
many other metro areas.

>__ There is a serious concern that, unless we start importing
>   people now, we will be faced with a shortage of people in
>   L.A. 
>
>Sacramento is considering MANDATORY NO-DRIVE days. Isn't this
>a hint there are too many people? 

	No, it's more a hint that there isn't enough roadspace in the Sac 
metro area to handle the amont of traffic during rush hour.  I-50 and 
I-80 both need to have at least one more lane added to each of them.

>How much freedom and quality
>of life are we willing to sacrifice just to preserve the right
>of excessive breeding. Instead of MANDATORY NO-DRIVE days, 
>MANDATORY GRIDLOCK, MANDATORY ENVIRONMENTAL destruction....
>
>.... How about just MANDATORY "DON'T HAVE MORE THAN (REPLACEMENT-
>LEVEL) TWO CHILDREN"? Why such opposition to a simple policy?

	Because very few people would be willing to trade their 
reproductive freedom for having less traffic and/or cleaner air over 
downtown Sac.  The only areas of the world that are organized enough to 
enforce such a policy don't have a need for it yet, and probably never 
will.  The fourth world is where such a policy would help the most, but 
most of such places would have revolutions if such a policy were to be 
enacted.  It's never gonna happen, especially in the US.

-- 
************ Jon Taylor *************************************************
* "For something that has spread with all the forethought of kudzu, the *
* Internet isn't half bad." - Newsweek, 2/27/95 *************************
************************************ taylorj@gaia.ecs.csus.edu **********