OT: Energy=Horsepower-Hours ???

You're comparing apples to oranges. The power at the outlet is in a more useful form than the heat coming out of heater. However, unfortunately, not yet easily subsituted for liquid fossil fuels for transportation purposes.

About 2% of petroleum goes into making plastic resins.. that stuff would be VERY hard to substitute for. Hopefully the major markets get converted to alternative energy sources before prices get entirely out of hand.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

That's an odd concept, that you have to 'maintain' a forest to make it natural. Nature doesn't need humans to maintain anything. We are very good at messing things up though.

Jeroen Belleman

Yes, it is an "old concept" and like many "old concepts" it is a very good one. Note that I did not say that humans were "maintaining a forest". I said the goal is to "maintain something like the natural ...". In this context the word "maintain" does not suggest people doing things it only means the continuation of a situation for the long term.

Sunlight is free and that's where the energy is coming from. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... remember?

I never suggested it would solve a problem. The method would create a lot of jobs though :-)

I agree. There should be no doubt about that. On the other hand, energy consumption could be greatly reduced. Take a car for instance; it is insane that the weight of a car is about 10 times the weight it is carrying -on average-.

"Create jobs" is another of those economic phrases bandied about in mythical proportions. By that I mean, simply 'creating jobs' is not an economic benefit and it's a trivial thing to accomplish. Just 'employ' everyone moving rocks back and forth. No purpose to it but it will 'create jobs'.

The point is, economic benefit comes from doing something 'productive' and 'jobs' are the *cost* of it, not a 'benefit'.

And the same thing applies to 'clean air' or 'solutions' to 'global warming'. Jobs are the *cost* of it and whether you actually get 'clean air', or a 'solution' to 'global warming' is the benefit. But if you don't achive those things then all you've done is move rocks back and forth at the cost of the 'jobs' that were 'created'.

That's a 'numerical analysis' that 'sounds good' because it's divorced from any meaning. For example, just how did you decide an engine 'should' weigh X% of the object being transported? And how did you decide it 'should not be needed' to have a protective shell around the passengers, or what it 'should' weigh?

Let's see, the average weight for a horse is around 1100 Lbs and the 'normal' passenger load is 1. Translating that to a typical 5 passenger sedan you get 5500 lbs. But it's faster, a dern sight more comfortable, and doesn't crap in the road.

I was speaking of society as a whole, mainly because it's the easy case, but it extends to the individual as well.

What you're describing is true of any voluntary economic transaction. The parties exchange 'value', in one form of the other. I.E. The maker of widgets sees the sale as 'income' and to the purchaser it's a cost.. But in all cases there is the underlying premise of an equal 'value' on both sides, otherwise it's charity or, in some cases, a political bribe.

How does it extend to the individual? Take the case of expending resources to 'fix global warming'. Before the 'fix' society produces X value of goods. Now divert resources to the 'fix' that would otherwise produce Y amount of goods. Society then has X-Y goods to spread among the individuals. If the 'fix' does not 'fix' global warming then you've expended resources and made society poorer for no benefit. If it does 'fix' global warming then *that* is the 'benefit' as society is still Y amount poorer in goods. That's the cost of it.

It's potentially worse because some portion of that Y expenditure might otherwise go to productivity improvements that are also lost.

Now, one can claim that the 'fix' might stimulate productivity improvements too but it's a distortion of the process, because the 'goal' is the 'fix', and almost certainly guaranteed to be less effective as a productivity enhancer than if the market was left to it's own incentives.

That doesn't necessarily mean you don't want to do it anyway, I.E. if the benefit is worth the cost, but the notion that expending X trillions of dollars will be, on the whole. 'offset' by 'job creation' is a myth.

The confounding case is when you 'create jobs' for people who would, otherwise, not have jobs. But that's essentially charity, regardless of what else one calls it, and is equivalent to moving the rocks back and forth for no purpose. Again, you might want to do it, from the charitable aspect, but it's an added cost.

But, guess what, productivity matters to the jobless poor too because a society can only afford the charity if it's productive enough to generate spare resources. Put in the simplest, degenerative, case, if you've got 6 people and 4 apples it doesn't matter how 'sympathetic' one is, there aren't enough apples to go around. It's only when you've got a prolific Johnny Appleseed that you have 'spares' to pass out, unless you divert him into carbon sequestration instead of apples.

True, but then you don't always have 5 passengers in the sedan either.

At any rate, it's all these 'witticisms' that get me riled up because there's no meaning to them yet people bandy them around as if they're some sort of 'wisdom', as well as 'obvious'. "Fragile Earth" (or environment) is another one. 'Fragile' as compared to what? A black hole? Or is a flea fart going to send it careening across the galaxy?

I thought about mentioning the safety requirements but the horse analogy was more fun ;)

vegitable oils won't work?

Bye. Jasen

yeah, forrest fires are natural...

Bye. Jasen

Essential even. Gump fires and prairie (savannah) fires too. Clears up the dead stuff, makes way for new growth.

Yes, and the prevention of essential burning ends up resulting in firestorms that are 100X as destructive as the natural fires would have been.

Thanks, Rich

Just now, I decided to play with the numbers. It seems that I have the following for n-octane:

This computes out to 34MJ/liter for n-octane or about 12.674 horsepower-hours/liter. Seems reasonable. I believe "gasoline" is tagged, here in the US anyway, at about 44MJ/liter.

Jon

There are many different types of forest in the world. Some have species of plants that have evolved to survive, and even depend on, periodic fires. For other forest types fire is very destructive and they can take centuries to recover. If the destruction covers a large enough area some will never recover.

I suspect you are personaly familiar with the former. Don't make the mistake of therefore assuming that fire is essential everywhere.

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

Of the dozen or so types that i have looked at that are common in the US and Canada all require semi-periodic fires; usually in the 10 to 20 years range. High chapparal requires fires about every 3 to 5 years to prosper. I do not claim to know the properties of all forests, and specifically rain forests i expect to be different.

I don't think "rain forests" have fires. Anyone ever remember a fire along the Amazon?

...Jim Thompson

There are rain forests in far different climates than the Amazon basin, some quite cool/cold (includes snow). I'll bet that some of those prosper best with semi-periodic burns also.

Hmmm. The hint is in the name. One of the defining characteristics of a rain forest (tropical and temperate) is the occurence of copious and frequent rain. You may care to elaborate on how natural selection would favour an ecosystem of plants that need fire to prosper, in an environment that is very very wet? Alternatively, if you believe in intelligent design, you could explain why god would waste so many matches trying to start a fire there!

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address