Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

William_Cleland · Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject:

Think I did address it, Neil. It all boils down to the effect on economic growth of passing peak production. There will be alternatives to petroleum (which is as I stated a finite resource) in terms of hydrocarbon based liquid fuels but they won't be as good in terms of EROEI and total production. The algae stuff always looks to me like a good way to attract venture capital and then do a runner. Think miscanthus may be the winner in that regard eventually.

http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org...tions_could_fuel_Scotland_s_cars/

Neil · Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject:

You hadn't addressed it but now you have

William_Cleland · Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject:

There is a lot more to it than genetic modification. The separation step on going from having algae growing in an aqueous media to extracting the oil is what seems problematic to me. The moment people start talking about using solvents like ether and benzene for that I know they are basically full of it and it hasn't got beyond a laboratory scale experiment. Producing ethanol using algae seems much further along in technical terms than producing oil from algae:-

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/default.html

Neil · Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject:

I don't think anybody said that this, at least the actual modification of algae, had yet got beyond the labortatory stage. The point is that it is reasonable to expect it will.

There seem to be an awful lot of people working on variants of this, you have found one yourself.

Going to be a bit of a crowd if they all intend to "do a runner" at once.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

William_Cleland · Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject:

Using algae to make something useful is a different paradigm from making something useful from algae.
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Neil wrote "Obviously the Luddites find progress frightening".

That is a distortion of the nature of the historical Luddite movement.

The Luddites were a movement of working-class resistance against capitalism in early Nineteenth Century England. Although they certainly did go in for sabotage, their objection was not to "progress" as such, but to the introduction of new technology UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CAPITALISTS, and for the benefit of the capitalists, not for the benefit of the workers. In other words, the movement was not about opposition to new technology as such; the new technology could be welcomed, provided that it could be shown to be for the benefit of all. It was a question of who controls, and who benefits.

There is a well-known scene in the film "Spartacus", in which the followers of the leader of the Spartacist slave revolt all say "I am Spartacus". This was intended as a way of taking collective responsibility. Nevertheless, Spartacus was a real individual. In the case of the Luddites, the supposed leader, "General Ludd", was entirely mythical. There was certainly widespread organisation, a quite considerable degree of organisation, of the Luddite movement, and you could perhaps say that there was some kind of flexible, changeable, collective leadership; but no actual "Leader" as such. Placing the responsibility for sabotage on "Ludd" was, to some extent, a way of misleading the capitalist class into chasing after a non-existent "Leader". The Luddites sang this song:

"These engines of Mischief were sentenced to die
By unanimous vote of the trade
And Ludd, who can all opposition defy,
Was the Grand Executioner made".

The other thing to note about the Luddites is that they were at least partly successfull, in that they forced the capitalist class of their day into moderating some of the worst excesses of its behaviour.

As well as being enthusiastically Unionist in his politics, Neil has also shown himself to be enthusiastically pro-Capitalist, so it is hardly surprising that he should distort the nature of the historical Luddite movement. But every time this distortion is used, it has to be challenged.

Neil · Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:25 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Neil made reference to "the Luddite movement". I pointed out his distorted characterisation of this movement. He now quotes something called the "American Heritage Dictinary" to support his mis-use of the term "Luddite".

Just because some ignorant folk use the word wrong, and some ignorant publication encourages such mis-use, is no reason to encourage the practice of such mis-use. Like I said, EVERY time the term "Luddite" is mis-used it has to be challenged. This is what has been done on other forums, and it is what will be done on this forum.

"It should be obvious to even the meanest intellect that I was using the word in its 2nd contemporary sense."

Just because Neil and some dodgy "American Heritage" publication claim the right to define a "contemporary" sense is no reason to let them get away with this. Like I said, EVERY time the term "Luddite" is mis-used it has to be challenged. This is what has been done on other forums, and it is what will be done on this forum.

"Yet again we see somebody on the eco-fascist side (I assume he prefers the term)"

Neil habitually resort to terms of abuse. Of course I don't accept the description.

"playing the man due to an inabliity to play the ball".

I am not in a game of football. I have no interest in football. I find a lot of what Neil writes downright boring. But I am interested in working class hsitory, so I commented on the only bit of a post of Neil's which I found of interest to me.

"There is no particular reason why being 'enthusiastically Unionist' (I'm not - provide me with a convincing argument for separation & I will go for it) & supporting capitalism should go together."

I never said there was.

"If to acknowledge that the regimes in South Korea, Hong Kong & Singapore have produced faster growth rates than those of North Korea, Burma & Zimbabwe makes one 'enthusiastically pro-capitalist' then I submit that absloutely anybody with any respect for facts whatsoever would have to be so".

Since I consider the regimes in North Korea, Burma, and Zimbabwe to be merely slightly different varieties of capitalism from the ones in South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, from my point of view that comment of Neil's is completely irreleant. The relevance of saying he is "enthusiastically pro-capitalist" refers to his heavily slanted version of the nature of the "Luddite movement" (to use his phrase).

Neil · Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Neil finds it surprising that North Korea could be considered a capitalist country.

Is the USA capitalist?

The USA economy has, from its very beginnings, been heavily dependent on government action, initiative, and enterprise, and, at this present day, there are dozens of state-owned enterprises in the USA which are far, far bigger than any state-owned enterprise in North Korea. In fact, there are many state-owned enterprises in the USA which are bigger than the entire North Korean economy.

Both North Korea and the USA have some state-owned enterprises, both North Korea and the USA have some privately-owned enterprises. The size is different, the mix is different, and there are, of course, many cultural differences between the two countries. But as for capitalism, we are talking just two of the variations on a theme to be heard in countries throughout the world.

Neil · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:49 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Neil wrote "Having attacked me for being 'pro-capitalist' this moron has redefined the term to apply to anybody who believes in the existence of any government anywhere in the world".

Sadly, as many people on this forum have learned, in every "discussion" involving Neil, he swiftly resorts to personal abuse. Here, yet again, Neil demonstrates his inability to discuss without resorting to personal abuse.

Describing somebody as "pro-capitalist" is merely a description. Indeed, there are quite a few here on this forum who would rejoice in the description. However, describing somebody as a "moron" is an "attack". It is personal abuse.

Incidentally, while Neil has unquestionably indulged in an "attack" involving personal abuse, not only is describing my own contribution as an "attack" inaccurate, I haven't even expressed the mildest of criticism of "anybody who believes in the existence of any government anywhere in the world".

I myself believe in the existence of governments in the world. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for anybody NOT to notice their existence.

William_Cleland · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:54 am Post subject:

No on the second part, Neil. You are either blissfully unaware of the key facts or in deep denial if you think peak oil isn't going to happen in global terms. Many countries including the UK and the United States have already been through it in terms of domestic production. It will happen in global terms as well when production in the supergiant fields in the Persian Gulf region like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia and Burgan in Kuwait starts to decline.

Neil · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject:

Anyone reading this will see that Dave started with personal attacks. I am confident that any reasonable person reading his posts will accept that many of his expressed opinions & are in fact moronic. If he claims that calling me "pro-capitalist" was not intended to be a personal attack (however unsuccessful & indeed off topic) I must accept this as representing the very highest standard of honesty of which he is capable - it is nonetheless a lie.

William you have indeed answered my question about the topic.

Unfortunately your answer was merely an assertion & made no attempt to explain why producing oil, sustainably, from algae or other GM plants won't work. Could you explain why you believe this is & will remain scientificly impossible?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

William_Cleland · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject:

At no point did I argue that. What I wrote was that algae produced from oil as opposed to ethanol produced by algae appears problematic to me and that I think miscanthus is the best bet right now in terms of biofuels. Liquid fuels can be produced sustainably at a certain level but even the most wildly optimistic advocates of those approaches do not expect to be able to meet the current annual growth in demand for liquid fuels. When petroleum production peaks there will have to be huge changes to the way modern civilisation operates. The future in transportation for example will revolve around hybrids that use liquid fuels only as a back up to Li ion batteries. Car manufacturers aren't developing that technology at massive expense just for the hell of it. They are doing it because it is going to be needed in the not too distant future.

Neil · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject:

William_Cleland · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject:

Sounds like a good way to attract venture capital. I'll take that seriously when they have a pilot plant up and running. Until then talk is cheap and time is short.
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

My style of discussing things can sometimes be quite controversial. There are advantages and disadvantages in this. Being TOO confrontational can sometimes put folk off properly considering what is being said, and I acknowledge that there have been instances where I have made this mistake. Nevertheless, I am well aware that the object is not just to "win" an argument, but to actually get folk to consider what you are saying. Although I do sometimes have failures, I'm glad to say that I do sometimes have successes also. People have actually told me that they have been influenced, to the extent of changing their view on a topic, by something I had written.

However, Neil is FAR more confrontational than me. It's obvious his aim is to "win" arguments. But if he does "win" in this limited sense, then it must be a phyrric victory. The number of folk he has succeeded in convincing could probably be counted on the fingers of one thumb.

Neil · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: