[extropy-chat] peak oil debate - "happy as a pig in shit"

[Robert Lindauer]

Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

>
> Most of the world has more marginal curcumstances than Hawaii.

No doubt, however in both the "corn belt" and in the more arid regions 
there are good alternatives to sugar cane, namely subar beet (which 
actually processes at a higher level - around 14%), corn, rice, potatoes 
and barley - all of which are grown commercially now in abundance far 
exceeding demand with huge potential for increased production.  Were 
demand to increase, existing fallow farmland could be utilized to 
fulfill needs providing economic stimulus to a now government subsidized 
industry as well as improved growing methods.

I'm -not- suggesting that the total oil utilization could be replaced by 
alcohol/biodeisel products, only that as an interim solution until a 
conversion to nuclear power and electric vehicles and mass 
transportation systems could be affected.

Of course the great success story is Brazil which now includes 24% 
sugar-produced ethanol in all of their fuel and their goal is to replace 
all oil use with sugar-produced ethanol.  And they're "low-tech" 
compared to the kind of industrialized farming and processing we're 
capable here in the good 'ol USofA.  Albeit at the great expense of the 
rainforests, but not, strangely, as great a loss as that lost to 
hamburger production. 

> So for us we have to have a valuable extractive, bio-pharm or complex 
> bioactive to feed the money machine
> to grow the biomass.

There are very, very effective existing ways of producing sugar-sources 
in almost every climate - and with a little R&D funded at say similar 
levels as Oil production and processing R&D, I'm sure those could be 
improved a thousand fold as people get better at it.  Trends for sugar 
production in Hawaii showed an increase of more than 15% per year per 
acre in yeilded refined sugar up until the sugar crash - and that was 
before they were seriously considering bio-engineering plants (like 
sugar cane - say a hybrid between cane sugar and elephant bamboo or 
something?)

> Marginal production will in time be enhanced by modification of plant 
> chemistry or growth cycles.

Quite right!

>
> The cellulose based ethanol and fuel-cell use cycle is a handy way to 
> get the last drop of good from
> biomass but for most of us it only works if the rest of the production 
> economics stand on their own
> without considering the salvage value of the biomass.


The problem with cellulose-based ethanol is the need to pre-process the 
material.  For instance, unprocessed sugar-cane can be fermented using 
existing yeasts with a yeild of approximately 11% of the total mass.  
Whereas with processed sugar you get nearly 100% conversion.  The 
difference - the unprocessed cellulose.  The problem is that yeast 
doesn't naturally breakdown cellulose.  You'd have to bio-engineer a 
good bacteria to first breakdown the cellulose and the return sugar for 
the yeast to make a really effective "self-perpetuating" cellulose fuel 
system.  It is, no doubt, a worthwhile endeavor!

>
> With logistical energy costs escalated, the micro-scale distance 
> insensitive local production of low value
> products combines well with exporting to distant uses small physical 
> quantities of high value materials.

Local production is key, for sure, but also very good for local economies.

>
> For me here it is cannabis.  the oilseed is middling value and 
> justifies long distance logistical cycles for
> processing and use.  The fibre must be bio-procesed and used in as 
> short distances as possible.


And more fun than alcohol as I recall.  May both be legal to produce at 
home soon!

>
> However bioextractives however produced which have an exponent or high 
> multiple value which
> can build and carry the whole production process.
>
> I have not read most of this string so the comments might be way 
> offbase... the pig in (shit) just caught my eye.


Ever actually see a pig stumbling around drunk?  Very funny. 



Robbie Lindauer