Good job I don't like fish....

Klenchblaize

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Nov 25, 2005
2,610
135
66
Greensand Ridge
torjusg said:
We are looking towards a serious cull in the earth's human population, the era of the humans is soon gone. Those remaining will be in a shrapmetal-stone-age, eeking a living of whatever is left.


What constitutes a “cull quality" human??

Best not answer that I guess!

Cheers
 

madrussian

Nomad
Aug 18, 2006
466
1
61
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
It's called supply and demand. If more people would restrict the amount of fish they consume then there would be less incentive for the large trawlers to overfish the remaining supply. Wouldn't you agree? Getting people to do that is impossible. Theres too much of a demand.
 

spamel

Banned
Feb 15, 2005
6,833
21
48
Silkstone, Blighty!
I don't eat fish that often, which is wierd because I really like fish!! I will have proper fish and chips each year when I get back to Blighty, but apart from that it's smoked trout. Have you ever tried smoking a trout? I can never get the damned things to light first time!! :D
 

torjusg

Native
Aug 10, 2005
1,246
21
42
Telemark, Norway
livingprimitively.com
Tengu said:
Dismissing it as magic is no good Torjus, it is a serious issue, and whoever works it out will become very powerful indeeed.

Seems at the moment your country is the leader in that field.

It may not be magic, but I have a very hard time believing that this civilization will understand the phenomena in time to use it, before things go down the drain.
 

Tengu

Full Member
Jan 10, 2006
12,976
1,628
51
Wiltshire
Depends if people start studying or no.

Project Hessladens been around a main few years, but as far as I know its still the only one of its kind.

People prefer superstition, it seems.

Me, I want to know things. I have seen several earthlights, as no doubt some of you have.
 

ilan

Nomad
Feb 14, 2006
281
2
70
bromley kent uk
One of my other hobbies was diving and a few years ago i was diving of the coast of northern france some of the best underwater scenery diving drop offs from 5-40 mts pinnicle rising up kelp in the shallowes etc yet i saw very few fish
but 1 dive out of brighton in 10mtrs of water i saw more fish than all 10 in france . It was sad to see the damage caused however by trawling, beds of mussles smashed barren patches on the sea bed . our only hope is to create artificial reefs ect and ban any sort of commercial fishing from the area .
 

Voivode

Forager
Oct 24, 2006
204
5
49
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
torjusg said:
How are you going to build those coal to liquid plants without any easily accessible fuel to start with? Coal to liquid is from what I have heard, a very complex process. Hardly something for a society that needs to build itself from an iron age stage (assuming total collapse).

Anyway, it isn't even close to having the same input to output ration energywise as oil. And another question: Does it even offer the possibility of making fuel for aircrafts?

Please don't call what I say rubbish, I claim yours to be the same!

Gassification of coal isn't a terribly difficult process as long as you have the industrial base to generate the catalysts; the South Africans did it for years and Nazi Germany was forced to it during the war. It is possible to generate most anything from coal that you can get from oil, but the energy costs are higher as you have to first convert that coal and then process it into jet fuel or plastic or whatever.

The problem isn't really whether it can be done (because it can), it's whether the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is greater than one. That is, if it costs 100 energy units to generate 50 energy units of jet fuel, you're losing energy and only the most wealthy will benefit. As it stands, it requires little energy to extract and process a barrel of oil, far less than the energy contained in that oil. As supplies dwindle, it requires more energy to extract those supplies and eventually it becomes so difficult to extract that it isn't worth it from a thermodynamic point of view.

So, yeah. The other problem is that coal is far more polluting than oil and natural gas. There are great gobs of nitrogen and sulfur locked up in there, requiring a good amount of processing to clean it up and that costs even more energy, making it an even more expensive alternative.
 

torjusg

Native
Aug 10, 2005
1,246
21
42
Telemark, Norway
livingprimitively.com
Voivode said:
So, yeah. The other problem is that coal is far more polluting than oil and natural gas. There are great gobs of nitrogen and sulfur locked up in there, requiring a good amount of processing to clean it up and that costs even more energy, making it an even more expensive alternative.

We usually don't seem to care about that factor do we... :(

The EOREI doesn't really matter as long as the output is of higher quality (usable for fuel etc...) and the input energy is abundant. If there is a shortage of the energy type needed for the process (input) it will however not be profitable. From what I hear, that is one (of many) reasons why the tar sands operations in Alberta is a very bad idea. Since the process consumes lots of natural gas which is becoming increasingly short in supply in North America.

Coal is though very much abundant in many places, but please let society collapse before we go down that road. That will in the long run surely be our doom. :eek:
 

Voivode

Forager
Oct 24, 2006
204
5
49
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
torjusg said:
We usually don't seem to care about that factor do we... :(

The EOREI doesn't really matter as long as the output is of higher quality (usable for fuel etc...) and the input energy is abundant. If there is a shortage of the energy type needed for the process (input) it will however not be profitable. From what I hear, that is one (of many) reasons why the tar sands operations in Alberta is a very bad idea. Since the process consumes lots of natural gas which is becoming increasingly short in supply in North America.

Coal is though very much abundant in many places, but please let society collapse before we go down that road. That will in the long run surely be our doom. :eek:

I'm right there with you on all counts. Since there is no other abundant energy supply to act as an input, at least not on the scale we're talking, gassification of coal or any of the other cures for oil aren't going to cut it at the dimensions that oil dominates the world. The oilsands are a bad idea for many reasons, not least of which is the massive amounts of natural gas (a very high quality energy source used to improve a poor quality one to good-enough quality) and the fantastic amounts of water consumed and polluted by the process. Along with the environmental damage, of course.

I'm not much for the collapse of society, but something has to change and I suspect that's the likely answer. :sigh:
 

ilan

Nomad
Feb 14, 2006
281
2
70
bromley kent uk
given that the human population will need to be reduced to a level at which a natural balance will be restored would there be sufficient people to maintain a modern life style or would we need to go back in time to a pre industrial age /
Still trying to get my head around all this global warming as there are millions of people without the basics who will become energy consumers whilst we in the west will need almost draconian reductions in our consumtion just to balance it out ?
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE