|
U-Know! Forum » Wind Farm to be placed at 'Ancient' Site |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
necropolist 1689 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 22:09
|
||
|
not sure at all that i'm reading this right (fuck, its friday evening i'm a bit pissed and about to meet billy....not to mention the fact that the english is rather bad in the article) but doesn't that figure of 57% simply relate to the energy a 'typical family' uses, not total energy usage? and as the energy a family uses is nowt compared to what is used by industry as a whole (the study only seems to take account of energy directly related to food), then its a bit misleading to say shopping locally (to put it very crudely) is the way forward. changing industrial energy use is the key. the article seems (to a psihed person) to be saying that only 16% of energy usage is involved in food producton totally, so 60% of that can be reduced, but it would make little difference overall. which probably doesnt make sense at all....should have waited till i was straighter.......BILLY!
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 22:38
|
||
|
okay, right, now, thats better..... i know you know a lot more about this than me, but i don't see where you get the figure of 57% from off that link. Unless I'm blatantly missing something, 57% isn't mentioned there - the figures that are mentioneed are: 17000 kwh per 4 person household 15000 kwh for the car (i'm surprised it's that low) 7500 kwh per person for food = 30000 kwh per4ph so food is only 48% (or so) which is still pretty high i grant you. but the article also says that food energy usage costs are 10% of total costs in sweden (16-21% in the uk), and so even whilst we could make substantial energy savings in these area's PERSONAL energy usage is still a small minority of total energy used. tho, i could just be totally misunderstanding the whole thing here i clearly grant you mmmm, my nose hurts......
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 22:55
|
||
|
the 57% comes from totalling current: car (15,000 kWh/yr) house (17,000 kWh/yr) food (42,000 kWh/yr) - estimated from graph The total is 74,000 kWh/yr... of which food is 42,000 kWh/yr... or approx 56.75%. More generally; you're completely right in what you say about food being a small percentage compared to *national totals*... pished or not. But i'm talking a little bit beyond that (and i believe Folke Günther probably is too). Here's my theory (and i welcome constructive crit). If you accept the idea that our society is fundamentally unsustainable; then it makes sense to examine ways to rectify that. Some folks try to envision a wholesale replacement of current (fossil) energy sources with "different ones" (green, nuclear, currently non-existant, etc.) This is the approach taken by the energy department of almost every government. It's also the approach taken by most independent or corporate research (hence the prevalence of hydrogen-fantasists and what have you). I take a massively different approach. And it's one taken by a much smaller group of researchers, analysts and activists. It's also the one that makes sense (in my opinion, etc.) Basically you identify the essential services required to support the population. You exclude all else from your research (except where it has an ERoEI impact - which is a lot of the time, granted). Then you devise a sustainable way of running those services. In the Swedish study, he has identified food, house (i.e. heat, cooking, light) and car (i.e. personal transportation) as the essential areas to produce efficiency gains and long-term sustainability. The theory continues along the lines that anything non-essential (i.e. outside the scope of your research) will eventually fall by the wayside (e.g. the airline industry) unless it can make itself sustainable. And frankly, i'll remain uninterested in those areas until the important ones are addressed. I just think it's essential to have a sustainable "basic infrastructure" in place before we start to run out of resources. The other stuff is detail. Let's solve the food / heat thing first. Then move on to the rest of industry.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 23:03
|
||
|
I see what you mean about the: > > 7500 kwh per person for food = 30000 kwh > per4ph > by the way. I figured i must have re-read the graph; but it's certainly up to 40,000 kWh/yr, and in the conclusion of the piece he talks about making a *saving* of 32,000 kWh/yr. Hmmm... it's confusing i grant you. If i remember, i'll post a message to a mailing list i'm on that he's a member of. See if i can get an answer.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 23:14
|
||
|
Upon re-reading the whole "Food" section, it feels to me like it's a summary of a much more comprehensive calculation. He starts out by ascribing 7,500 kWh/yr to "direct energy in food transport and handling". Later there's another 900 kWh/yr for "annual biological energy uses for growth and maintenance of a human" which may or may not include fossil fuel fertilisers and the systems that produce and distribute them. It's hard to tell. His English is a damn sight better than my Swedish though, so i'm not complaining. Later he acknowledges that "In these figures, the energy use in agriculture is not included", but i can't follow what he means by the ratios and numbers that follow that statement (and i've plenty of practice with energy research). So i'm gonna take the "picture is worth a thousand words" approach and use the graph ;-)
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 23:21
|
||
|
> > I just think it's essential to have a sustainable > "basic infrastructure" in place before we start > to run out of resources. > I should have implied in that; by the way; the public ownership of that basic infrastructure.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Jun 06, 2003, 23:25
|
||
|
fair play, cheers for your answers. i think the fact that he baes his figures in swedish use of 900 k a day food intake, when the us eats 3500k must have some difference too! i'll try and look at the figures & what you're saying again when i'm less......well, everything basicallly!
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Jun 09, 2003, 16:48
|
||
|
"More details about the meeting etc: Nechtan wrote: ++++ The enquiry between Neath Port Talbot (NPT) Borough Council, the windfarm company and other "interested parties" (such as the Rambler's Association, CADW, Countryside Council for Wales and the Campaign for Rural Wales) is being held on 1 July at the Council Offices in Penllergaer on 1 July. All "interested" parties had to submit their opposition to this development in March, and as such, there is no point in any other parties lodging their complaints, as they won't be heard. However, one of the main opposers to this development, Richard Hart-Jones of Llangynwyd, will be presenting evidence and information against the wind farm and is currently collating all the relevant documents and maps. I spoke to him on Friday. Mr Hart-Jones was one of the 17 people that opposed the open cast mine in the Llynfi Valley proposal eight years ago - and won. At the enquiry, there will be a consultant representing those that are opposed to the development. However, his fee is £500, and we currently have £160 raised to pay him. Due to this, there is a 'cheese and wine' evening being held on Thursday, 19 June, at 7pm at the Llangynwyd Church school room, with most probably, drinks afterwards in the Corner House or Old House (home of the Mari Lwyd). I would ask all members of this list that are local to the area to turn up, and those that cannot come, send a donation c/o The Corner House, Llangynwyd, Maesteg, Mid Glamorgan. Address the envelope FAO Richard Hart-Jones. Thank you. I will be seeing Mr Hart-Jones on Tuesday night and will have an update then, which I will pass on to the list."
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
