Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:56 pm
No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:36 pmYour lack of comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination. The molten interior of the earth is 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around, with an average temperature of around 5000 degrees centigrade. Further, 50% of the heat energy is radiogenic; produced by the breakdown of radioactive elements. It's reasonable to describe that as a limitless source of energy; for while not actually infinite, many times current global energy demand would not make a dent. Given such energy to spend, we could desalinate water and irrigate land that is currently unproductive because it has no water. In that context cattle would serve a vital role in developing land, feeding on hardy plants that grow in poor soils, improving the soil for different forms of agriculture to follow.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:57 amYou are full of bullshite, Pun intended.
That energy has always been there, yet remains largely untapped except in Iceland, where there are many difficulties in harnessing it.
I've asked before, and it is clear that you do not have a fucking clue how to solve the multiple problems in safe extraction and conversion to something useable.
Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive.
So what you're saying is that I'm full of shit, while your main problem is that you're burdened with the facts? That doesn't sound right. Are you sure?
Strictly speaking, that energy has only been there only so long as the earth has been there, which is around 4.5 billion years. This is important because it's a measure of just how much energy there is, that the Earth's crust, 5–70 kilometres (3.1 – 43.5 mi) thick has solidified in the past 4.5 billion years. Magma is 4000 miles deep. Less that 1% of the surface has cooled in 4.5 billion years.
That also not correct. The largest producer of geothermal is the US, then Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Italy - then Iceland. Larderello in Italy has been operating since 1913; so geothermal isn't new either.
I have suggested a different approach to extracting geothermal energy; I think is feasible, and would overcome both the replacement rate problem, and the risk of geological instability - while also producing greater power. It is possible that what I propose is not possible. I accept that; even while I think it is possible.
I cannot make sense of the following:
"Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive."
I cannot speak at length on the subject of comparative methods of cattle farming, but I live in the UK, where we've been farming the same land, sustainably - for thousands of years. In the UK, cattle are grazed outdoors, and spend as little time as possible in the barn. Consequently, Allan Savory's arguments make a lot of sense to me - both in evolutionary terms, and what I see around me; cattle have a role in maintaining the land, trampling grasses and spreading dung, and thus
could help resist desertification. So, getting rid of cattle to solve climate change is a bad idea. What we need instead, is limitless clean energy from magma, in excess of current global energy demand, to also power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation and recycling.
So again "have less, pay more, stop this, tax that" is the wrong approach to sustainability!