Display:
You do know that the costliest bit of logistics is not long distance shipping, but the local distribution, right? Shippinh lots of stuff over long distances is cheap and easy - you can use huge boats, combined sea/river/rail systems, standardized containers which are extremely energy efficient altogether.

What is costly is the last mile, where you need to deliver lots of small packages (whether of energy, goods or anything else) to lots of different places. That's energy intensive, but it's easier to do in concentrated areas, where you can get dense networks (with all the redundancy you need).

There is a reason why human activity always migrated towards this, even before there was plentiful oil.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 01:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why high-density residential and mixed residential-commercial land uses are optimal.

Also, by the way, why it makes sense to segregate residential from agricultural uses. Because it is easier to work a contiguous plot of land than many scattered plotlets. And this is irrespective of whether we're talking about monoculture or permaculture.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 05:19:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Easier for mechanised agriculture, maybe ; or animal traction. Not so sure about perma culture ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 10:44:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Permaculture seems to me an attempt at recreating a rich ecosystem in controlled way in a limited space. It's easier to have an ecosystem on a larger scale.

But I might well be wrong on this. We haven't had enough diaries on permaculture in any case (hint, hint).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 10:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, man is part of that ecosystem, and its excrements are very good fertilisers. Who's candidate to carry the load of sh*t 3 miles from here ? :)


Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose that's what composting toilets are for, which are more efficient if built into multi-unit housing.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Using human crap as fertiliser is a bad idea. You get a concentration of toxins, biomagnification I think it's called.

Plants grow, ingesting some small amounts of toxins. Animals eat plants, getting far higher concentrations of toxins than the plants have as the toxins are retained in the animal tissue. Humans eat the animals and get even more toxins. Dumping our toxic crap on plants will make us ingest far more toxin the next time we eat meat, and it will get worse for every consecutive year.

Now, if you manage to separate the toxin from the crap in an economic way, you have a prize to collect in Stockholm.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't that an argument for not using manure as fertilizer, too?
Dumping our toxic crap on plants will make us ingest far more toxin the next time we eat meat
How about you don't eat meat?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:33:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but the toxins are magnified one extra time in the loop (and by an order of magnitude???) if you go plant->cow->man->plant etc compared to plant->cow->plant. At least this is what they told me in high school biology. Considering where I learnt about it, I can't really claim to be an authority on these things.

I might also have mixed up biomagnification with bioaccumulation. Let's see what wikipedia says.

Biomagnification, also known as bioamplification, or biological magnification is the increase in concentration of a substance, such as the pesticide DDT, that occurs in a food chain as a consequence of:

    * Food chain energetics
    * Low (or nonexistent) rate of excretion/degradation of the substance.

It is an important concept in ecology, environmental science, and ecotoxicology: it says that the solution to certain types of pollution is not dilution, because food chains will concentrate the pollutant.

Although sometimes used interchangeably with 'bioaccumulation,' an important distinction is drawn between the two. Bioaccumulation occurs within a trophic level, and is the increase in concentration of a substance in an individual's tissues due to uptake from food and sediments in an aquatic milieu. Bioconcentration is defined as occurring when uptake from the water is greater than excretion. (Landrum and Fisher, 1999). Thus bioconcentration and bioaccumulation occur within an organism, and biomagnification occurs across trophic (food chain) levels.

Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a rate greater than that at which the substance is lost. Thus, the longer the biological half-life of the substance the greater the risk of chronic poisoning, even if environmental levels of the toxin are very low.

This is one reason why chronic poisoning is a common aspect of environmental health in the workplace. As people spend so much time, for so many years in these environments, very low levels of toxins can be lethal over time.

An example of poisoning in the workplace can be seen from the phrase "as mad as a hatter". The process for stiffening the felt used in making hats involved mercury, which forms organic species such as methylmercury, which is lipid soluble, and tends to accumulate in the brain resulting in mercury poisoning.

Other lipid (fat) soluble poisons include tetra-ethyl lead compounds (the lead in leaded petrol), and DDT. These compounds are stored in the body's fat, and when the fatty tissues are used for energy, the compounds are released and cause acute poisoning.

Strontium 90, part of the fallout from atomic bombs, is mistaken by the human body for calcium, and is laid down in the bone, where its radiation can cause damage for a long time.

Naturally produced toxins can also bioaccumulate. The marine algal blooms known as "red tides" can result in local filter feeding organisms such as mussels and oysters becoming toxic; coral fish can be responsible for the poisoning known as ciguatera when they accumulate a toxin called ciguatoxin from reef algae.



Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 02:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe that's correct, though you need to be careful with it. I'm not sure of the details though - I believe Deanander is the authority on that.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 11:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series