Monday
Mar212011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More unintended consequences
Mar 21, 2011 Greens An excellent article in the Guardian, looking at the effects of misguided greenery on poor people, and in particular how scaremongering over GM crops is leading to massive hikes in food prices.
The continuing distaste for [genetically engineered plants] and their consequent absurd over-regulation means that the most up-to-date, environmentally benign crop protection strategies are used almost exclusively for the mega-crops that are profitable for biotech companies. The public agricultural research sector remains largely excluded from using modern molecular technology. Will this change soon? I don't think so."
H/T The Englishman.
Reader Comments (124)
Frosty
Just as I said - 11:56am; 2:18pm; 2:28pm. Are you doing this on purpose?
The tinyurl link works - but I quickly see the word 'Illuminati' - and stop reading. Please don't mess me about.
Laverstoke Park is pretty infamous amongst agricultural experts hereabouts. It is synonymous with biodynamics. Your link - your problem.
I find your response to be evasive, disingenuous and unsatisfactory.
11:56am etc today March 22
BBD
“Can you rephrase?”
I’ll try. You said that DC line losses are 30–40% less than with AC lines, whose losses you quoted as 3% per 1000km (seems low, but doesn’t affect the argument much). I surmised therefore that AC losses were around 1% greater, but even if they are as much as 5%, if the AC/DC/AC conversion mops up 15%, then I see no advantage with DC. The conversion losses are presumably the same, whatever the line length?
Frosty
I've been unable to look away from the 'source' you provide re Russian Revolution. There is more utter bollocks in this book than anything I've seen recently. You seem to be putting if forward seriously, which means you have just committed credibility suicide.
Incidentally, despite all the other BS about global conspiracies, I take it very amiss that the book repeats the smear about Robert Gallo. My late father worked with Gallo in the early 70s (we lived in Bethesda MD at the time). I met Robert on several occasions.
As I said, credibility suicide Frosty.
Anyone wondering what I'm on about - index here:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarning
Club Of Rome using AIDS 'invented' by Robert Gallo to control population here:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn08-5
James P
No, I didn't. Here's the original:
=======================
Don Pablo @ 11:33pm March 21
HVDC line loss is ~3% per 1000km, eg:
The most economic solution for long-distance bulk power transmission, due to lower losses, is transmission with High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC). A basic rule of thumb: for every 1,000 kilometres the DC line losses are less than 3% (e.g. for 5,000 MW at a voltage of 800 kV). Typically, DC line losses are 30–40% less than with AC lines, at the same voltage levels, and for long-distance cable transmission DC is the only solution, technically and economically.
http://www.energy.siemens.com/fi/en/power-transmission/hvdc/hvdc-ultra/#content=Benefits
There are further losses associated with AC/DC/AC conversions. Losses on a 3500km HVDC line are estimated at ~15% eg: van Voorthuysen (2008); Trieb & Knies (2004).
Mar 22, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD
==============================
Sorry again BBD, was looking at page 1, I've been very distracted between posts with some very unpleasant carer duties, mea culpa.
Never mind, I will not address you again since genuinely asking your opinion draws such a bitter response.
Not bitter, Frosty. Frank.
My question is this:
Which legislative body would one approach to get this Law of Unintended Consequences repealed? Things were a lot easier before that law came into being!
Oh yeah..../sarcoff
BBD see my response at Mar 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM in reply to you cited posts, which you replied to, hence my confusion as to a no response accusation.
What's the point tho really, I ask you to respond to the content of a link and you nut if off as tinfoil based on the directory without addressing a single thing in the article, I remain unimpressed by your response, though very impressed with you ability to obfuscate.
And I'm the one being accused of being disingenuous?
BBD
I'm a bit confused with this
You said HVDC is 30-40% lower loss than HVAC (I am assuming in transmission). And you say that the loss rate (according to Siemens) is 3%. That means HVAC should be about 1/3rd greater or 4% -- No?
As noted earlier, I have a serious problem with Siemen's claims of a mere 3% per 1000 Km. Perhaps in 100 Km, but not 1000Km, even if it is only resistive load, which it basically is. Or they have either very large or super conductive cables.
I do accept that HVAC with reactance and RF generation losses will be higher, probably more like twice. I am talking (actual power in)/ (actual power out ) at the far end and not AC/DC/AC losses.
In short, I trust the Siemens PR in the reference you pointed to about as far as I trust Bob Ward.
And then there is the question of what really are the AC/DC/AC losses. That is at least 15% as I remember, and you still have the AC/AC step down transformer losses to deal with as well. Lotsa smoke being blown by Siemens I think, who are in the business of selling this equipment, as I remember.
I have looked around for a reference that I could trust, but have not yet found it. I was hoping someone posting here has such direct experience. I once did, 20 years ago, but that is long ago and my mind dim on those factoids.
I have no doubt that the transmission of power over HVDC is more efficient than HVAC when you look at line losses only, but when you add up all the other losses (AC/DC/AC mostly) you are not doing so well and when you look at the costs for a highly reliable system (99.9% and not the 96% cited for HVDC) you have a very expensive grid. ( NB: 99.9% reliable means you have about 8 hours of power outage a year. 96% reliable means you have about two weeks of power outage a year. The goal most power utilities strive for is 99.99% reliable or about .8 hours a year. This is the transmission system I am talking about. Distribution is much poorer due to weather and such.
As noted, I am with Atomic Hairdryer and would love to see the power utilities spend their own money to build this wonderful power cord to Iceland -- but not public money. And the same goes for all those windmills. If they are so efficient, they should be a bargain to invest in -- so why don't they? Hmmmm?
Don Pablo
Siemens' claim for its own product is in the public domain. Long-distance HVDC exists. So presumably the facts broadly agree with the claim or there'd be a writhing ball of lawyers in the middle of it all. Unless you (or I) can find a definitive source that disagrees, 3% is the number on the table.
Remember, I do not endorse a European supergrid. If it should turn out that the actual transmission and conversion losses for HVDC invalidate the whole concept, so be it.
But so far, nobody appears to have proved that HVDC interconnectors are an engineering bottleneck. We shall see.
HVDC cables are a hazard to sharks. I've seen Jaws, so I know this to be true.
But back to food and old-style crop rotation vs more modern farming practices. Has moving away from stubble burning to ploughing it in increased the risk of crop disease? Also curious about biochar. Some say it's a good thing, but stubble burning would seem to have produced some in-situ.
BBD
Sorry - I should have said that you quoted DC line losses as 3% per 1000km, and 30–40% less than with AC lines. As Don Pablo says, that makes around 4% for AC. Conversion of high voltages to DC requires some heavy rectification, and conversion back to AC is even more difficult, so the 15% loss figure there is entirely believable. I simply don't see the advantage of DC, even if a long undersea cable in inhospitable waters that are regularly fished was a good idea in the first place, hence my quip about supercooling (i.e. just to make it even less viable).
What is so difficult about generating the stuff here? (that's rhetorical BTW).
Atomic: in an attempt to counter the obtuse point scoring confusion induced by BBD - I am not advocating old style crop rotation as a stand alone technique. The soil food web approach is a holistic soil restoration and management strategy. It's is not "biodynamic farming" just because a recommended soil lab is situated on a biodynamic farm. There are some commercial companies involved also http://www.symbio.co.uk/category/21.aspx http://www.martinlishman.com/envirohome.htm
There is much confusion regarding Biochar, it is not simply adding charcoal to soil, or it would be called charcoal. Biochar must be activated either by cycling through good temperature controlled compost, or by seeping it in quality controlled aerobic compost teas (controlled via microscopy) the charcoal provides a stable platform for micro-organisms providing some longer term stability and higher microbial populations. There are some good papers on this regarding "terra preta" from S. America.
I am still learning to do my own quality control, I have only had a decent microscope for a fortnight! I have not used any of the labs I've mentioned for analysis as I am not supplying commercial applications as I have no commercial certification as yet. I have been on a very steep learning curve for around 4 months. I have visited one commercial fruit grower who has been using this system for some time, I was impressed by the results on the ground, it backed up what I have seen on various web videos, some of which can be found here http://farmingsecretsblog.com/ I am far from expert in this approach.
We have 7 acres, 2 of which are currently annual veg. I want to utilise ACT as it saves a logistical headache regarding compost volumes.
I remain convinced this approach is the future of farming.
Interconnectors
IIRC, the original purpose of the 2GW UK/France interconnector was for balancing purposes whereby short term exess generation in the UK could be credited to the Frogs rather than getting someone to turn down their power station output, which is inefficient operation for that generator.
Now, of course these things have turned into massive VANITY projects, Salmond Fish Cake with his Scotland/Norway link and BuffHuhne with his Scotland/Iceland link.
These links, taken together, are hardly worth a bucket of warm sick: Iceland 1.1GW, Norway 1.2GW.
As we write, at the behest of these limp members, (c) BBD @ Mar 21, 2011 at 6:35 PM , thousands of brilliant engineers are being forced to waste their working lives figuring out to fit these albotrosses into their national grid systems.
Of course, all those thousands of man-hours come out of your depleted wallets, one way or another.
Desertec
In Spain they were recently caught out bathing their solar panels in light from diesel generator powered banks of floodlights during the hours of darkness; presumably in North Africa, they will generate solar power after the sun goes down using the muzzle flashes from AK47s and the warm orange glow from the deployment of Molotov cocktails.
Frosty
No, no you have it wrong. I was just trying to point out that you have no credibility.
For example, you advocate labour intensive, expensive, unproven, fringe agricultural practice. Your primary sources are web videos and such like. Your experience is negligible eg owned a microscope for 2 weeks, and you admit to a very steep learning curve of '4 months'.
Yet your repeat your astonishing conviction 'that this approach is the future of farming'.
You argue with the one obvious expert here - SayNoToFearmongers - who appears to have given up on you as a lost cause.
Upthread I linked to a long article by a real farmer who also disagrees with you. That was never mentioned again, but then you don't respond to things you don't like, do you?
Upthread you accuse me of obfuscation, but although I have twice provided the times of comments I would like you to address, all I got in response was excuses and whining. It's all my fault for being nasty to you.
Then you link to the most appalling garbage I've seen in a very long time, and get upset when I object eg:
But what really, truly astonishes me is that after all that, you are here again this morning, as if nothing had happened, having another pop at me.
Now that is brass neck.
James P
No essential disagreement - see my response to Don Pablo @ 9:15pm yesterday. I don't think the burden of proof rests with me. Can you find a source that shows that HVDC is not fit for use as an interconnector?
Brownedoff
Very amusing ;-)
Alternatively, we could simply burn money here in the UK to run steam turbines, keep warm etc. It would be less bother in the long run and probably cost out roughly the same.
And it neatly boxes round the potential problems with those wretched HVDC interconnectors...
BBD
"simply burn money here in the UK to run steam turbines"
Have a look at this for a laff:
http://www.thelocal.se/27630/20100706/
and see Commenter number 29:
"It would be interesting to see if emission of gases from 500,000 'Selmas' would warrant an environmental surcharge."
In the UK you would probably get arrested and thrown in the Tower.
Trebles all round!
BBD there's no end to it with you is there "owned a microscope for 2 weeks"
I said decent microscope, as this stuff needs phase contrast, but what's the point with you, you are clearly more interested in point scoring. My 14 yrs experience running commercial hydroponic greenhouses counts for feck all eh.
You have a closed mind, or an ulterior motive, whatever I will not respond to you again.
Frosty
Before you resort to making up stuff (eg 14 years experience in hydroponics etc), let's just consider this in the round.
This thread is about 'unintended consequences'. The unintended consequence of indulging neo-hippie agro-fantasists like you will be hundreds of millions of deaths through starvation by around the middle of the century.
You go on and play with your fringe beliefs re agriculture and the secret history of the world. But do not expect to be met with universal sympathy and indulgence.
Encouraging the fashionable but profoundly counter-productive fantasies of the organics/anti-GM brigade and the clean energy brigade will bring down disaster on all our heads in the next few decades.
But you are all so puffed up with a toxic mix of ignorance and self-righteousness that you don't see it. You do not see the harm that you do. The unintended consequences of placing belief ahead of knowledge.
Now go off in a huff and don't respond to me. It will make no difference as you haven't made a single substantive response to anything I have said during this entire exchange.
And everyone who has read it can see that.
As I said earlier Frosty, you have no credibility.
BBD
"Can you find a source that shows that HVDC is not fit for use as an interconnector?"
I haven't really looked, but I'm still baffled why anyone would want to, if HVAC is cheaper and more reliable. The increase in transmission loss, as we've discussed, would seem to be totally outweighed by the conversion process. The whole project (a fat bit of wire under the sea to Iceland) seems bonkers anyway!
James P
You still seem to be treating me as the enemy, ie an advocate for supergrids and HVDC interconnectors.
May I politely request that you go back to the beginning of the thread and read all my comments on this topic.
I meant what I said to you earlier - the accepted facts re HVDC are the ones I posted here. If you don't 'like' them, then you need to present some evidence that they are flawed.
I'll give you a little hint though - the 15% AC/DC/AC conversion loss figures are in part based on Trieb & Knies (2004). Both researchers are ardent supporters of CSP and presumably of projects like the Desertec proposal.
I may be a climate change sceptic but I'm also a GM sceptic. Not all GM foods are the same, and I see little difference ingesting a normal vegetable soaked in insecticide and one that has been engineered to produce insecticide.
The big problem I see with GM is that it is impossible to stop gene transfer with other plants; and, if bad long-term effects are found, it may be too late to keep those genes out of the system. Also, there is the huge potential for lawsuits against farmers whose plants have been cross-pollenated.
If people want to sell GM foods, the very least I want to do is to see by labelling whether the food that I buy contains it.
The argument that we need this stuff to feed an ever-increasing population begs the question: what happens when even this isn't enough? If the world population keeps increasing, then, surely, more forests will be cut down for building land, and people will still starve because the amount of land available to grow food will diminish.
There has to come a point, some time, when nature has to take its course, or people start to use contraceptives.
It is not our responsibility to provide food for populations which breed out of control.
Lastly, if we cut down all the forests to feed and house an infinitely expanding population, we really could get a CO2 problem.