Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Andrew_S wrote:
MrBill wrote:
Not too mention that farming is very conducive to alternative energy. One, the range of the tractor is always close to home. No long distances to travel. That means tractors can run on battery power that is recharged using solar or wind. Secondly, usually when you need the tractor the sun is shining, so it is not a case of needing power when it is not available. And thirdly, renewable stationary power can be used to help manufacture liquid transport fuels such as cellulosic ethanol or bio-diesel.
Have any battery-powered tractors ever been made? (I'm totally clueless about this, just want to check the viability.)
The battery technology is still too expensive, but tractors have some advantages over cars, for example. For one thing sleek styling and space are not constraints, so size does not matter. A tractor can easily pull a battery on wheels behind it the size of a tank of ammonia. And one battery wagon can be recharging while another is being used.
The reason this particular technology has not been commercialized, yet, is because fossil fuels are a) still too cheap, b) still readily available, and c) making bio-diesel to run existing tractors is more cost efficient than swapping out your existing tractor fleet that is already built, bought and in service.
In any case, diesel engines in locomotives actually convert the energy first to electricity before running the drive-train. Ships and submarines also use a combination of diesel-electric motors and rechargeable batteries. This technology has been around since the beginning of the last century, and has been constantly improved since. Of course, hydrid electric tractors are in wide use by airports to reduce emissions.
According to Norfolk Southern Railroad a diesel-electric locomotive can pull a ton of freight 400-miles on a gallon of diesel. That's 169-kilometers per litre of diesel for those who prefer metric.
Quote:
This combination of diesel engine and electric generators and motors makes the locomotive a hybrid vehicle. In this article, we'll start by learning why locomotives are built this way and why they have steel wheels. Then we'll take a look at the layout and key components.
My guess is that the change-over in tractors will start first with the use of bio-diesel while some of these other technologies are improved so that they are cost competitive. Even with higher commodity prices farm incomes are on average low and machinery is still very expensive. CNH tractors in Germany, for example, already come bio-diesel ready.
Translation: Biodiesel: What you should now know about it. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
MrBill wrote:
According to Norfolk Southern Railroad a diesel-electric locomotive can pull a ton of freight 400-miles on a gallon of diesel. That's 169-kilometers per litre of diesel for those who prefer metric.
That's pretty impressive.
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. So it sounds as if electric systems for farm tractors might become cost-effective and practical when liquid fuels are sufficiently scarce and expensive.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Andrew_S wrote:
MrBill wrote:
According to Norfolk Southern Railroad a diesel-electric locomotive can pull a ton of freight 400-miles on a gallon of diesel. That's 169-kilometers per litre of diesel for those who prefer metric.
That's pretty impressive.
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. So it sounds as if electric systems for farm tractors might become cost-effective and practical when liquid fuels are sufficiently scarce and expensive.
I am saying that growing food is so basic and so important - all economic growth and labor specialization naturally starts with growing an agricultural surplus - that it is a need that cannot be ignored.
That is why 'if energy gets too expensive that growing food will be too expensive and that we won't' is a poorly thought-out argument. We will literally give-up all non-essential production and consumption to grow food. There is no alternative. Food is a true Giffen Good!
Once we remove petroleum from our energy mix then we automatically move down the EROEI value-chain to the next best alternative. It may not be as efficient or as cheap, so by default food will become dearer using that alternative, which will be more expensive in real terms if total energy goes down in the absence of petroluem products.
But once again I really fear climate change's effects on food production more than I fear the technical difficulties of dealing with post peak oil decline. It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange? _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
MrBill wrote:
It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
T. Malthus said these unwashed masses should not be invited to the feast...I agree.
And if someday I become unwashed...I will not be expected to be invited to the feast...and I will understand. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
roccman wrote:
MrBill wrote:
It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
T. Malthus said these unwashed masses should not be invited to the feast...I agree.
And if someday I become unwashed...I will not be expected to be invited to the feast...and I will understand.
roccman, sorry, my bad. I really should not use that term. It is very provocative. I am only saying that at some point food distribution to those that need it, but cannot pay for it, becomes just as pressing a problem as physically growing it. It is the lifeboat argument! ; - ) _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4351 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
MrBill wrote:
roccman wrote:
MrBill wrote:
It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
T. Malthus said these unwashed masses should not be invited to the feast...I agree.
And if someday I become unwashed...I will not be expected to be invited to the feast...and I will understand.
roccman, sorry, my bad. I really should not use that term. It is very provocative. I am only saying that at some point food distribution to those that need it, but cannot pay for it, becomes just as pressing a problem as physically growing it. It is the lifeboat argument! ; - )
Somehow I think "provocative" is going to take on a whole new meaning in the near future.
No problem Mr. Bill...It is all good...and it is all about understanding. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Quote:
It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
They will have the same thing of value that the unwashed masses have been trading for food since the dawn of time: their labor.
For thousands of years before oil the unwashed masses traded their labor for food barring calamity or politics. To suggest that they will no longer be able to do so after oil is suspect on all counts both historical and logical.
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 5695 Location: Body in OK, Heart in TX
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
LoneSnark wrote:
For thousands of years before oil the unwashed masses traded their labor for food barring calamity or politics. To suggest that they will no longer be able to do so after oil is suspect on all counts both historical and logical.
The difference being that for thousands of years before oil there were not 6.5+ billion of us. 40 years ago there were about 3 billion. Do you really think there's no difference?
Oh yeah, also we didn't have the same weapons before the oil age. _________________ "Every junkie's like a setting sun..." - Neil Young
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
MrBill wrote:
I am saying that growing food is so basic and so important - all economic growth and labor specialization naturally starts with growing an agricultural surplus - that it is a need that cannot be ignored.
That is why 'if energy gets too expensive that growing food will be too expensive and that we won't' is a poorly thought-out argument. We will literally give-up all non-essential production and consumption to grow food. There is no alternative. Food is a true Giffen Good!
Once we remove petroleum from our energy mix then we automatically move down the EROEI value-chain to the next best alternative. It may not be as efficient or as cheap, so by default food will become dearer using that alternative, which will be more expensive in real terms if total energy goes down in the absence of petroluem products.
But once again I really fear climate change's effects on food production more than I fear the technical difficulties of dealing with post peak oil decline. It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
I agree completely. Some here talk as if oil will suddenly vanish. Poof, no more oil, ever. And following from that assumption, no more food. It's rather silly. Of course there will be a prioritization of increasingly scarce fuel supplies, and of course food production will be at the top of the priority list. This will likely require an expansion of the centralized regulatory state. Not a good thing in and of itself, but it will stem the mass famines that some here think will strike North American cities in a few years.
We'll be paying a lot more for food in the near future, and not just because of biofuels. All the stars are aligning for rapid increases in food prices in the near future: oil production is not going to be meeting demand soon, the global population continues to explode, consumption of animal products is skyrocketing even faster than population, global climate change may soon / is already affecting ag production, biofuel production is picking up, etc., etc., etc.
This means the Third World better get food self sufficient, and it better do it soon. The US will not be feeding the world for much longer. When I'm paying $10 for a loaf of bread or a gallon of fuel, my concern about starving Third Worlders will be even less than it is now (and it's already practically non-existent).
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 5695 Location: Body in OK, Heart in TX
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Loki wrote:
]Some here talk as if oil will suddenly vanish. Poof, no more oil, ever. And following from that assumption, no more food.
Our system depends on trucking food all over the place. There are vast areas that can't depend on local sources to feed their populations. To keep food distribution going in the face of depletion will require a very extreme centralized regulatory state, and even then it will be problematic. Look at the impacts of trucker strikes in industrial countries even at this early stage. _________________ "Every junkie's like a setting sun..." - Neil Young
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Shannymara wrote:
LoneSnark wrote:
For thousands of years before oil the unwashed masses traded their labor for food barring calamity or politics. To suggest that they will no longer be able to do so after oil is suspect on all counts both historical and logical.
The difference being that for thousands of years before oil there were not 6.5+ billion of us. 40 years ago there were about 3 billion. Do you really think there's no difference?
Oh yeah, also we didn't have the same weapons before the oil age.
I find it laughable that LoneSnark keeps on forgetting these "subtle" differences.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4519 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
[quote="MrBill"]
Andrew_S wrote:
I am saying that growing food is so basic and so important - all economic growth and labor specialization naturally starts with growing an agricultural surplus - that it is a need that cannot be ignored.
That is why 'if energy gets too expensive that growing food will be too expensive and that we won't' is a poorly thought-out argument. We will literally give-up all non-essential production and consumption to grow food. There is no alternative. Food is a true Giffen Good!
Once we remove petroleum from our energy mix then we automatically move down the EROEI value-chain to the next best alternative. It may not be as efficient or as cheap, so by default food will become dearer using that alternative, which will be more expensive in real terms if total energy goes down in the absence of petroluem products.
But once again I really fear climate change's effects on food production more than I fear the technical difficulties of dealing with post peak oil decline. It is not that we cannot grow food using alternatives after petroluem is gone. It is can we grow enough to sustainably feed not only ourselves, but also the great unwashed masses that may have nothing of value to trade in exchange?
The assumption here (and in any other debate where armchair quarterbacks outline prescriptive change for the world) is that humanity is this big hive mind that acts logically and singularly in the face of challenges. This isn't what happens in the real world, which is why our problems are mounting. People would like to think that the end results will be the same via the free market. But as we all know, the free market responds to short-term pressures rather than long-term trends.
I'm concerned that if business fails to act appropriately that it will require government to step in dictatorially otherwise we'll have a massive calamity.
Joined: May 13, 2007 Posts: 646 Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
(1) I see nothing wrong with farmers being paid a decent wage to feed us. Those who support fair trade seem to forget our farmers.
(2) I don't see biodiesel being the panacea it believed to be.
(3) Don’t forget the “Green Revolution” is based on petroleum.
(4) In the future it may not be possible to feed the world’s starving because we will not be able to reach them economically. _________________ Appuis ait fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae.
Alias Redneck
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
Great stuff, this last page.
I agree that oil, perhaps other energy too will keep flowing into the agricultural sector once it is correctly recognised as the most important fundamental economic activity, but news snippets from around the world lead me to believe this enlightenment will not come the easy way, without a few harvests being lost here and there first. The transition could be painful enough for people to have reason to shout apocalypse from the rooftops even if we get a grip later. In fact I would bet on that happening. But recent comments are a useful reality check. So long as agriculture is not excessively disrupted... I guess successful countries will not allow that to happen.
Regarding the length of supply chains, I think that can sort itself out too. First, because not all people will stay put, many will move to where distribution is adequate. This need not be a disorderly migration either. Second, because even though current food freight miles could do with being cut by at least an order of magnitude, in a well-run country someone will pick up the remainder. A country that runs its affairs well will not find a problem with ensuring food freight gets priority over single-occupant SUVs. Again, there is no reason why a country can't ditch out-of-season (and out-of-continent) fruit and keep cereals on its roads if it wants to survive.
In fact, you could probably say that these are some of the obstacles to overcome, and there will be countries that will manage as surely as there will be countries that will fail. Such are the tests that we have to pass, perhaps. _________________ Volatility. When life isn't exciting enough.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: The end of cheap food (The Economist)
mos6507 wrote:
...I'm concerned that if business fails to act appropriately that it will require government to step in dictatorially otherwise we'll have a massive calamity.
I remember after Hurricane Katrina when gasoline spiked above the (then) unthinkable $3/gallon, one of the most talked about questions within the news media was:
"Is the president doing enough to contain fuel prices?"
Most people said something alone the line of: government should "do something." My response however was when the "fcuk" did we become a communist country? Recall that oil refineries were forced to delay maintenance and pump out more gasoline. (an act of futility in the long term) If hurricane Katrina was a small hint of things to come I am certain when food shortages become severe the public will ask the government to "do something". I think all those "Armchair quarterbacks" should factor this into their strategy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
