Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Careful, Denis.

Expand Messages
  • twayburn@att.net
    Denis, You wrote: What right do you believe you have to say on a public forum that I am wrong without even addressing the points I have made about the
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 20, 2012
      Denis,

      You wrote:

      What right do you believe you have to say on a public forum that I am wrong without even addressing the points I have made about the deficiencies in ERoEI. I am posting this on ER because I need to show that I am under an ad hominem attack because I provide constructive argument about a measure that is in common use in a misleading manner.


      Denis,

      You are adding insult to injury. The paragraphs on the Autonomous Alternative Energy District (AAED) answer every criticism of ERoEI you have listed, to wit:

      Let us suppose that a group of people representing all of the trades and professions wishes to support itself completely by relying on a single alternative, renewable energy technology for all of its energy needs. Let us suppose further that all of the natural resources necessary to do this are available within the AAED [and the repositories of such natural resources must be retained at steady state from the detritus of the AAED including superannuated installations of the technology]. Nothing is imported from outside the District whereas energy and only energy is exported. If a man needs a car to drive from his home (in the District) to his job (in the District), the car is built, maintained, and fuelled in the District. If his wife is sick the doctor in the District will treat her with medicine made in the District from chemicals produced there from raw materials mined there. The EROI of the new energy technology is the total energy produced, ER, divided by the quantity ER minus the quantity EX, where EX is the energy exported; i. e., EX = ER – EI. If the District is able to export any energy at all the EROI ratio exceeds one and the technology is feasible – at least.


      The AAED is self-supporting and sustainable. It does not deteriorate the environment. I do not say that such technology exists - only that material and energy balances over the Earth and human society show that it is possible for it to exist.

      Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
    • Denis Frith
      Tom You make a contribution to the discussion but it is hardly a constructive one. Your quote deals only with the energy needs of a community. There is no
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 21, 2012
        Tom

        You make a contribution to the discussion but it is hardly a constructive one. Your quote deals only with the energy needs of a community. There is no mention of the other needs of the community for operation and for maintenance of the supporting infrastructure. There is the presumption that no material (natural resources) is wasted in the process. The judgment on the feasibility of the AAED cannot be made on the basis of the argument you quote.

        You do not deign to respond to any of the points I made. Ironically, you respond by quoting an example that has some of the logical weaknesses I have attemtped to point out.

        Denis

        --- On Tue, 21/2/12, twayburn@... <twayburn@...> wrote:

        From: twayburn@... <twayburn@...>
        Subject: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.
        To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        Received: Tuesday, 21 February, 2012, 3:08 PM

        Denis,

        You wrote:

        What right do you believe you have to say on a public forum that I am wrong without even addressing the points I have made about the deficiencies in ERoEI. I am posting this on ER because I need to show that I am under an ad hominem attack because I provide constructive argument about a measure that is in common use in a misleading manner.

        Denis,

        You are adding insult to injury. The paragraphs on the Autonomous Alternative Energy District (AAED) answer every criticism of ERoEI you have listed, to wit:

        Let us suppose that a group of people representing all of the trades and professions wishes to support itself completely by relying on a single alternative, renewable energy technology for all of its energy needs. Let us suppose further that all of the natural resources necessary to do this are available within the AAED [and the repositories of such natural resources must be retained at steady state from the detritus of the AAED including superannuated installations of the technology]. Nothing is imported from outside the District whereas energy and only energy is exported. If a man needs a car to drive from his home (in the District) to his job (in the District), the car is built, maintained, and fuelled in the District. If his wife is sick the doctor in the District will treat her with medicine made in the District from chemicals produced there from raw materials mined there. The EROI of the new energy technology is the total energy produced, ER,
        divided by the quantity ER minus the quantity EX, where EX is the energy exported; i. e., EX = ER – EI. If the District is able to export any energy at all the EROI ratio exceeds one and the technology is feasible – at least.

        The AAED is self-supporting and sustainable. It does not deteriorate the environment. I do not say that such technology exists - only that material and energy balances over the Earth and human society show that it is possible for it to exist.

        Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas





























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tom Wayburn
        Denis, Let us return to your accusation of an ad hominem attack, which was completely false at the time; but, now, I’m about to make it true, although in
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 21, 2012
          Denis,



          Let us return to your accusation of an ad hominem attack, which was
          completely false at the time; but, now, I’m about to make it true, although
          in this context it is hardly a fallacy:



          1. I am concerned about your reasoning ability if you do not see why
          the AAED answers all of your objections to ERoEI.
          2. I wonder if your education in aeronautical engineering extended to
          the PhD.
          3. You have repeatedly referred to yourself as a scientist. Have you
          then made a number of scientific discoveries you can point to? It might be
          helpful if they were written up in recognized scientific journals.
          4. If the answers to the above are negative, I wonder where you get the
          nerve to call yourself a scientist.



          Thus, ERoEI* includes everything you have mentioned as deficiencies in
          ERoEI. It includes them because I say it does, which I am at liberty to do.
          Whether or not a technology exists that can provide energy at an ERoEI*
          greater than 1.0 is an open question; but, in
          http://www.dematerialism.net/availbalredux.htm, I computed the sun’s
          contribution to the amount of reversible work that can be done on Earth as
          1984 TW and the negentropy flow as 637.3 × 109 kilowatt-hour per Kelvin per
          hour. These are very large numbers and should be sufficient to operate a
          steady-state, soft-energy Earth-as-a-garden civilization sustainably.



          Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas







          _____

          From: senescence-of-civilization@...
          [mailto:senescence-of-civilization@...] On Behalf Of Denis
          Frith
          Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:41 PM
          To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: senescence-of-civilization@...
          Subject: {senescence-of-civilization:1307] Re: [energyresources] Re:
          Careful, Denis.




          Tom
          You make a contribution to the discussion but it is hardly a constructive
          one. Your quote deals only with the energy needs of a community. There is no
          mention of the other needs of the community for operation and for
          maintenance of the supporting infrastructure. There is the presumption that
          no material (natural resources) is wasted in the process. The judgment on
          the feasibility of the AAED cannot be made on the basis of the argument you
          quote.

          You do not deign to respond to any of the points I made. Ironically, you
          respond by quoting an example that has some of the logical weaknesses I have
          attemtped to point out.

          Denis


          --- On Tue, 21/2/12, twayburn@... <twayburn@...> wrote:


          From: twayburn@... <twayburn@...>
          Subject: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.
          To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
          Received: Tuesday, 21 February, 2012, 3:08 PM



          Denis,

          You wrote:

          What right do you believe you have to say on a public forum that I am wrong
          without even addressing the points I have made about the deficiencies in
          ERoEI. I am posting this on ER because I need to show that I am under an ad
          hominem attack because I provide constructive argument about a measure that
          is in common use in a misleading manner.

          Denis,

          You are adding insult to injury. The paragraphs on the Autonomous
          Alternative Energy District (AAED) answer every criticism of ERoEI you have
          listed, to wit:

          Let us suppose that a group of people representing all of the trades and
          professions wishes to support itself completely by relying on a single
          alternative, renewable energy technology for all of its energy needs. Let us
          suppose further that all of the natural resources necessary to do this are
          available within the AAED [and the repositories of such natural resources
          must be retained at steady state from the detritus of the AAED including
          superannuated installations of the technology]. Nothing is imported from
          outside the District whereas energy and only energy is exported. If a man
          needs a car to drive from his home (in the District) to his job (in the
          District), the car is built, maintained, and fuelled in the District. If his
          wife is sick the doctor in the District will treat her with medicine made in
          the District from chemicals produced there from raw materials mined there.
          The EROI of the new energy technology is the total energy produced, ER,
          divided by the quantity ER minus the quantity EX, where EX is the energy
          exported; i. e., EX = ER – EI. If the District is able to export any energy
          at all the EROI ratio exceeds one and the technology is feasible – at least.


          The AAED is self-supporting and sustainable. It does not deteriorate the
          environment. I do not say that such technology exists - only that material
          and energy balances over the Earth and human society show that it is
          possible for it to exist.

          Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas











          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • e_bittencourt
          Denis One can not efficiently discuss a wicked problem withou knowing what a wicked problem is . If a group tries to do this , it will fragment the
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 22, 2012
            Denis

            One can not efficiently discuss a wicked problem withou knowing what a wicked problem is . If a group tries to do this , it will fragment the problem to the point of not finding (in reality, not understanding the problem) adequate solution, and ending general blaming each othar , finding scapegoats, a result of not understanding the situation .

            Edison

            Edison
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Denis Frith
            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: senescence-of-civilization@...
            Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:41 PM
            Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.



            Tom

            You make a contribution to the discussion but it is hardly a constructive one. Your quote deals only with the energy needs of a community. There is no mention of the other needs of the community for operation and for maintenance of the supporting infrastructure. There is the presumption that no material (natural resources) is wasted in the process. The judgment on the feasibility of the AAED cannot be made on the basis of the argument you quote.

            You do not deign to respond to any of the points I made. Ironically, you respond by quoting an example that has some of the logical weaknesses I have attemtped to point out.

            Denis

            --- On Tue, 21/2/12, twayburn@... <twayburn@...> wrote:

            From: twayburn@... <twayburn@...>
            Subject: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.
            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            Received: Tuesday, 21 February, 2012, 3:08 PM

            Denis,

            You wrote:

            What right do you believe you have to say on a public forum that I am wrong without even addressing the points I have made about the deficiencies in ERoEI. I am posting this on ER because I need to show that I am under an ad hominem attack because I provide constructive argument about a measure that is in common use in a misleading manner.

            Denis,

            You are adding insult to injury. The paragraphs on the Autonomous Alternative Energy District (AAED) answer every criticism of ERoEI you have listed, to wit:

            Let us suppose that a group of people representing all of the trades and professions wishes to support itself completely by relying on a single alternative, renewable energy technology for all of its energy needs. Let us suppose further that all of the natural resources necessary to do this are available within the AAED [and the repositories of such natural resources must be retained at steady state from the detritus of the AAED including superannuated installations of the technology]. Nothing is imported from outside the District whereas energy and only energy is exported. If a man needs a car to drive from his home (in the District) to his job (in the District), the car is built, maintained, and fuelled in the District. If his wife is sick the doctor in the District will treat her with medicine made in the District from chemicals produced there from raw materials mined there. The EROI of the new energy technology is the total energy produced, ER,
            divided by the quantity ER minus the quantity EX, where EX is the energy exported; i. e., EX = ER – EI. If the District is able to export any energy at all the EROI ratio exceeds one and the technology is feasible – at least.

            The AAED is self-supporting and sustainable. It does not deteriorate the environment. I do not say that such technology exists - only that material and energy balances over the Earth and human society show that it is possible for it to exist.

            Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Denis Frith
            Edison Thank you for your comment re wicked problem . I have pursued this issue to try an obtain understanding. It does not help that Tom Wayburn sees fit to
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 22, 2012
              Edison
              Thank you for your comment re 'wicked problem'. I have pursued this issue to try an obtain understanding. It does not help that Tom Wayburn sees fit to question whether I can read or think and my scientific ability. It now seems that to Tom, and many others, 'energy' is much more than a property of materials (the view of physicists and engineers). This is not surprising given that politicians, economists and the media seem to regard 'energy' as a commodity and that the entropic consequences of its usage need not be taken into account realistically.

              So, yes, consideration of 'energy' is a wicked problem. I am now in a better position to understand what others mean by such measures as ERoEI.

              Denis Frith


              --- On Wed, 22/2/12, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

              From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
              Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.
              To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
              Received: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012, 10:50 PM
















               









              Denis



              One can not efficiently discuss a wicked problem withou knowing what a wicked problem is . If a group tries to do this , it will fragment the problem to the point of not finding (in reality, not understanding the problem) adequate solution, and ending general blaming each othar , finding scapegoats, a result of not understanding the situation .



              Edison
















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • e_bittencourt
              Denis I am very glad that you got interested the in the issue of wicked problems , . It is still possible do download Wicked Problems & Social
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 24, 2012
                Denis



                I am very glad that you got interested the in the issue of "wicked problems", . It is still possible do download "Wicked Problems & Social Complexity" at

                < http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf >. This article corresponds to the first chapter of the book "Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems" , de Jeff Conklin

                , and it is very instructive. Allow me, also, to suggest that you visit the CogNexus Institute at < http://www.cognexus.org >



                Citation from the article: "Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them."

                --Laurence J. Peter

                "CogNexus Institute is dedicated to teaching Issue Mapping and Dialogue MappingT, proven methods for working with wicked problems. Issue and Dialogue MappingT build shared understanding and shared commitment, which are two of the most important capabilities necessary for moving forward in the most complex situations. "

                About the book "When an organization is confronting a wicked problem the familiar approaches don't work. For one thing, with a wicked problem there isn't even agreement about what the problem is, much less how to solve it. To make progress one must focus on creating maximum shared understanding and shared commitment among the stakeholders. Dialogue mapping is a proven technique for building that shared understanding and commitment, as efficiently and effectively as possible."

                Our training was heavily based on what is called "tame problems", a problem the professor knows the answers ( often a single answer), given to you , to "find the answer" in an hour or two. I got to this subject while searching the internet on the subject of Complexity. I believe that wicked problems emerge from Complex Systems.

                In not understanding the nature of the problem ( Climate change is considered a "super wicked problem" ) the different stakeholders in agroup trying to solve the prolems believe the theirs is "the right solution" -there is no "right solution" but onley better or worse solutions.



                Edison











                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Denis Frith
                To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:09 PM
                Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.



                Edison
                Thank you for your comment re 'wicked problem'. I have pursued this issue to try an obtain understanding. It does not help that Tom Wayburn sees fit to question whether I can read or think and my scientific ability. It now seems that to Tom, and many others, 'energy' is much more than a property of materials (the view of physicists and engineers). This is not surprising given that politicians, economists and the media seem to regard 'energy' as a commodity and that the entropic consequences of its usage need not be taken into account realistically.

                So, yes, consideration of 'energy' is a wicked problem. I am now in a better position to understand what others mean by such measures as ERoEI.

                Denis Frith

                --- On Wed, 22/2/12, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

                From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
                Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.
                To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                Received: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012, 10:50 PM



                Denis

                One can not efficiently discuss a wicked problem withou knowing what a wicked problem is . If a group tries to do this , it will fragment the problem to the point of not finding (in reality, not understanding the problem) adequate solution, and ending general blaming each othar , finding scapegoats, a result of not understanding the situation .

                Edison

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • twayburn@att.net
                This idea of wicked problems reminds me of the old dichotomy of convergent and divergent problems. It must be very interesting if it is anything like
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 25, 2012
                  This idea of wicked problems reminds me of the old dichotomy of convergent and divergent problems. It must be very interesting if it is anything like complexity theory in numerical analysis; but, Edison, understanding ERoEI* isn't a wicked problem.

                  Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas




                  --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "e_bittencourt" <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Denis
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I am very glad that you got interested the in the issue of "wicked problems", . It is still possible do download "Wicked Problems & Social Complexity" at
                  >
                  > < http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf >. This article corresponds to the first chapter of the book "Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems" , de Jeff Conklin
                  >
                  > , and it is very instructive. Allow me, also, to suggest that you visit the CogNexus Institute at < http://www.cognexus.org >

                  >
                  > Citation from the article: "Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them."
                  >
                  > --Laurence J. Peter
                  >
                  > "CogNexus Institute is dedicated to teaching Issue Mapping and Dialogue Mapping, proven methods for working with wicked problems. Issue and Dialogue Mapping build shared understanding and shared commitment, which are two of the most important capabilities necessary for moving forward in the most complex situations. "
                  >
                  > About the book "When an organization is confronting a wicked problem the familiar approaches don't work. For one thing, with a wicked problem there isn't even agreement about what the problem is, much less how to solve it. To make progress one must focus on creating maximum shared understanding and shared commitment among the stakeholders. Dialogue mapping is a proven technique for building that shared understanding and commitment, as efficiently and effectively as possible."


                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • e_bittencourt
                  Tom I entirely agree with you about ERoEI not being a wicked problem -they constitute, using the language of the area, a tame problem , with clear
                  Message 8 of 9 , Feb 25, 2012
                    Tom

                    I entirely agree with you about ERoEI not being a wicked problem -they constitute, using the language of the area, a "tame problem" , with clear definitions, and aplicability . But climatic/economic/social problems are wicked , which I believe, is a consequence of its complex nature (meaning a consequence of the properties of a complex system), in this case involving immaterial issues, not quantifiable, political elements, sociological, contraditory. Semantics ( same thing different name) have to be considered in dealing with the issue, as with dealing with complexity. The question of "How to measure and define complexity", and so on. This is rooted deep in the past, when the planet was emtpy in contrast with today's full world.

                    Edison

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: twayburn@...
                    To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:45 AM
                    Subject: [energyresources] Re: Careful, Denis.




                    This idea of wicked problems reminds me of the old dichotomy of convergent and divergent problems. It must be very interesting if it is anything like complexity theory in numerical analysis; but, Edison, understanding ERoEI* isn't a wicked problem.

                    Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas

                    --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "e_bittencourt" <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Denis
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I am very glad that you got interested the in the issue of "wicked problems", . It is still possible do download "Wicked Problems & Social Complexity" at
                    >
                    > < http://www.cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf >. This article corresponds to the first chapter of the book "Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems" , de Jeff Conklin
                    >
                    > , and it is very instructive. Allow me, also, to suggest that you visit the CogNexus Institute at < http://www.cognexus.org >

                    >
                    > Citation from the article: "Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them."
                    >
                    > --Laurence J. Peter
                    >
                    > "CogNexus Institute is dedicated to teaching Issue Mapping and Dialogue Mapping, proven methods for working with wicked problems. Issue and Dialogue Mapping build shared understanding and shared commitment, which are two of the most important capabilities necessary for moving forward in the most complex situations. "
                    >
                    > About the book "When an organization is confronting a wicked problem the familiar approaches don't work. For one thing, with a wicked problem there isn't even agreement about what the problem is, much less how to solve it. To make progress one must focus on creating maximum shared understanding and shared commitment among the stakeholders. Dialogue mapping is a proven technique for building that shared understanding and commitment, as efficiently and effectively as possible."

                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.