Spam: OT:Energy content of human labor was: Real Linux Men (was: [SGVLUG]Guns, 4WD...and Linux)

[David Lawyer]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:28:28AM -0700, Emerson, Tom (*IC) wrote:
> I have NO idea why your plain-text-without-any-links message got caught
> by our corporate spam filter, but it did...
> 
> > -----Original Message----- Of David Lawyer
> [...]
> > 
> > To estimate the energy require to make corn ethanol, just put 
> > all the facilities and support needed for making ethanol in a 
> > small city surrounded by corn farms.  And make a colored 
> > fence enclosing this community (and farms) with only one 
> > entrance gate to the outside world with no people flow thru 
> > the fence or gate.  The only export from this community is 
> > ethanol and the imports consist of all goods needed to 
> > support the ethanol production and the people who live in the 
> > community all of which are directly or indirectly associated 
> > with the production of ethanol.  
> [...]
Thanks for your comments.  I realize now that I didn't explain the
model in enough detail.  I was going to send this idea as a letter to
the editor but it would have to be too long to be convincing.
> 
> Anyway, after retrieving it from the shredder and taking a look at it, I
> can't help but think that while this is a novel approach, you're
> overlooking something obvious which negates the entire premise, such as
> the fact that a "corn ethanol worker" does not spend 100% of his waking
> hours producing corn ethanol...

True.  But think of the fenced community and the energy flows going in
and out of the gate.  If more energy goes in than out, the community
is parasitic on the rest of the world for energy.  I guess I'll need
to explain the model first before summarizing the conclusions.

> You are also discounting (or actively ignoring) the fact that there
> appears to be some self-sufficiency within the community -- the fact
> that a "corn ethanol" facility is surrounded by cornfields gives rise to
> the possibility that SOME of the corn grown might be diverted to the
> local markets and sold [internally] as FOOD for the workers.
 
This could be but of course it'll result in less export of ethanol.
So I'm just letting all the corn be exported as ethanol.
> 
> > Now for every person in the community who works on the farms 
> > or in ethanol production, a few other non-production people 
> > will be needed to provide services to people.  There will 
> > also need to be spouses and children supported to sustain the 
> > population.  Also, retirees from this community will need to 
> > be supported as well.  Thus you will need government, 
> > teachers, schools, roads, food, clothing, hardware, energy 
> > depreciation of infrastructure, etc. (excuse the possible 
> > double counting).
> 
> Likewise, most, if not all, of this "non-production support" is a
> bit of a red herring -- you don't need teachers if you "home school"
> the children [because if you take this to the logical extreme, the
> only thing the children need to learn is how to be a corn ethanol
> worker, because if they learn ANYTHING else, that {knowledge} will
> naturally be an "export" from the community, and you've already
> stated the ONLY export is corn ethanol...]  

Except that there's a whole town, with all kinds of modern technology
in it so we'll need people trained in technology.  It will need people
trained in medicine, law, etc.  Also, voters need to be well educated.
I now think that there should be a flow of information in and out
where the community provides it's share of information (via the
Internet for example) to the outside world.  What I should have stated
is that by putting people in this ethanol community, their lifestyles
will remain the same as previous and the energy cost of driving to
work will remain the same.  

> 
> To clarify: if a child learns ANYTHING other than how to produce
> corn ethanol, and that knowledge CANNOT be used within the
> community, then that becomes a WASTE PRODUCT since you've declared
> that the only export from the community is corn ethanol -- the child
> cannot "leave" the community and spread this knowledge elsewhere...
> 
> You won't need police or government, because the only thing people
> can do within this community is produce corn ethanol  (i.e., they
> cannot be criminals...)

Why not?  This is a community just like any other and there are equal
opportunities for crime.  And government is not just for protection
against crime.  It's much broader.

> You've stated this is a "small" community, so roads need not be
> anything more than dirt paths [people will walk -- no need for fancy
> cars or even bicycles -- those just expend extra energy with no
> tangible return...]  OTOH, it could be argued that the energy
> expended by pedaling a bike would be less than the energy needed to
> "walk" to work and back, but this is only viable if the "total
> energy needed to produce and maintain the bicycle" is less than the
> energy saved by bicycling instead of walking, and thus we get into a
> circular death spiral...

It turns out that a bicycle isn't much more energy efficient than
driving as you'll find in my "Bicycle Efficiency" article on my
website, which now needs revision in view of the model presented here.

> 
> > So for the ethanol production to yield a positive energy return on
> > energy invested, the energy represented by the flow of energy into
> > the enclosed community must be less than the flow of energy out in
> > the form of ethanol.
> 
> Heh heh heh -- with this thought in mind, I invite you to join my
> sourceforge "project" called "YATSkit" -- though I'm still in the
> design and discussion phase, the goal is to produce some classes
> that can be used to simulate real-world economic/transport systems.
> No reason we can't include "energy" as part of the model...
> 
> > ... just the input energy required to support the production
> > workers.  To support a person in the US with a typical lifestyle
> > requires about 100 times the food calories one eats. ...[snip]...
> > we now have about 1200-times.  Thus the fuel
> energy 
> > of a worker producing ethanol or corn is over 1000 times his
> > caloric food energy expended.
> 
> Who said the workers in this "community" would be "enjoying a
> typical lifestyle"?

The purpose of the model is to show the energy flow relationships for
etanol production in a typlical dispersed society like we have today
in the US.  Thus the lifestyles inside this commnity should be close
to the typical lifestyles in the US today.

> After all, the "only export" from this
> community is corn ethanol, so any activity that leads to the
> production of ANYTHING other than corn ethanol would have to be
> considered "waste".

No.  There is "production" of all kinds of services one finds in a
city.  Medical services, entertainment services, repair services,
construction work to replace worn out infrastructure, etc., etc.
All this will require educated people with about the same % of college
grads as at present.

[note: this leaves the possibility of
> procreation up for debate -- while the end product is not corn
> ethanol, what is produced are corn ethanol-workers, presumably to
> replace worn out units...]

And also produce government bureaucrats, artists, musicians,
educators, engineers, cashiers, carpenters, plumbers, authors,
soldiers, etc.  The military people for simplicity will remain in the
community but they represent people who will likely be outside the
community much of the time but be supported by the community.  They
are protecting the community from foreign invasion, etc. (mostly etc.)

> 
> OTOH, if we do allow the community members the ability to "enjoy a
> typical [US] lifestyle", then we have to consider the fact that the
> nominal output of the corn ethanol worker is 1/100th of the caloric
> input of the worker -- the other 99/100ths are spent on "lifestyle"
> activities [such as engaging in pointless debates via e-mail...]

What you seem to mean is that food calories per capita represent only
about 1% of fuel consumption per capita.  But to grow, transport, and
cook the food takes about 10% of our fuel energy (10 times the caloric
value shown on food packages).  The other 90%?  Medical care (about
the same magnitude as food), housing, education, clothing, children,
recreation, entertainment, vices (gambling, smoking, bad drugs),
religion, driving.  I may be double counting some since if you drive
somewhere for entertainment that's energy spent on entertainment and
not driving.  An interesting project, if it hasn't been done would be
to create a pie chart showing how people expend our fuel energy.  A
different chart for a poor person and a rich person.

			David Lawyer