1980's Breakdown of the World Orders

[semiotic_pirate]

1st, 2nd, and 3rd world country labels are relics from the Cold War.

The first world were democratic capitalist countries that were industrialized. NATO was the biggest collection of these countries

The second world were Communist, industrialized countries. The Warsaw pact is the biggest collection of these countries

The Third world were non-aligned countries that were not industrialized. Basically the third world was the battleground for the Soviet Union and the US fighting for converts to their ideology. The Cold War was fought for control of these countries either by military conquest, or political influence.

----------------------------

Having a difference of opinion in a previous post as to the disposition of China. In referring to it in Cold-War Era terms, it is a 2nd World nation. Because it was (oh, still is!) an industrialized nation. Industrialized nations can build things such as factories and power plants without too much trouble, when compared directly to non-industrialized nations.

China just experienced a massive earthquake. One of the ways we get updates about this is all the people in China that are blogging, Twittering, and Flickering about what's going on in their neck of the woods.

And, isn't China like one of the biggest industrial espionage nations out there? Can't use that stolen technology information if you don't have the industrial capacity to make home-grown versions.

Am I losing my mind? Should I accept China being called 3rd world just because they aren't democratic or as up to date on having a clean, environmentally responsible to the planet political stance? It's not like I am comparing them to Switzerland or something... I just think that they could build a cellulose-to-ethanol plant if they really wanted to.

Opinions wanted on this topic. What do you think?

Comments

Re: They could build it... IF THEY WANTED TO.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

US gasoline consumption is at something like 388.6 million gallons/day, and refineries thus must be able to produce comparable quantities-- those plants are just testbeds.

Also, none of that addresses breakeven concerns

Re: They could build it... IF THEY WANTED TO.

[semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com]

First: The second plant/refinery is NOT a test bed.

Furthermore: Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch... I can't wave a magic wand and make the damned plants appear.

That wasn't the argument.

The argument was that China is NOT a "third world country" as you stated, and that IF THEY WERE OF THE MIND TO they could build a cellulosic ethanol plant.

I'm not just going to simper and say, oh, of course you are right... because you aren't. I'm not saying that the infrastructure is there, it isn't yet, but it is technologically and economically feasible.

As villagecharm is saying in another comment to this post: "It's probably better right now to think in terms of core, semi-periphery and periphery. Under that set of terms, China is a semi-peripheral nation moving into the core."

Re: They could build it... IF THEY WANTED TO.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

my argument is this:

I don't think -anyone- knows how to build a plant or set of plants which will produce four million barrels of ethanol a day without consuming more resources than it produces... which is one percent of domestic US consumption, an effect so small you'd never notice it, even if it cost nothing to make in terms of money or the environment.

Since I don't think -anyone- can do it, I don't think -China- can do it.

You're arguing well outside of your expertise in terms of what is "technologically feasible."

Re: They could build it... IF THEY WANTED TO.

[semiotic-pirate.livejournal.com]

You really don't know WHAT my area of expertise is. So don't insult me by making assumptions.

In January, USDA researchers completed a five-year evaluation of another biofuel feedstock with the potential to make a serious dent in US petroleum usage. In the largest study to date, switchgrass has been shown to produce 540% more energy than was used to grow, harvest, and process it into cellulosic ethanol, while reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 94% when compared to gasoline.

Researchers don’t expect switchgrass to replace corn fields, but see crop development occurring on marginal, highly-erodible lands. Hence, it won't cut into our food production.

Biomass left over after converting switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol could be used to provide energy for the distilling and biorefinery processes, further adding to the fuel’s net energy balance. It has also been proved that this leftover can be used as feed for ruminant populations.

Re: They could build it... IF THEY WANTED TO.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

In January, USDA researchers completed a five-year evaluation of another biofuel feedstock with the potential to make a serious dent in US petroleum usage. In the largest study to date, switchgrass has been shown to produce 540% more energy than was used to grow, harvest, and process it into cellulosic ethanol, while reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 94% when compared to gasoline.

Fine, yell out your ass, have the last word... no need for me to stick around.