by davep » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 13:52:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'W')ell, no peak oilers are very forthcoming about making a prediction about WHEN we will see an end of our current booming trend in Science & Technology. They just don't want to think about it - because it interferes with their own religious beliefs derived from charts and graphs extrapolating petroleum depletion into the future.
You can't have an Olduvai Gorge if Sci/Tech is streaking forward at mind-boggling rates.
There is a consensus that peak oil has either already happened or it will occur over the next decade. It doesn't really matter. We're not talking about hundreds of years.
I really don't see how current trends in science and technology will mitigate the downslope in these timescales. Maybe some of the new stuff will save us, but it's a big ask. And if they do, I'm worried about the ecological implications as well.
I'd love to have your faith. But as with all absolute faith, I maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.
What we think, we become.
-

davep
- Senior Moderator

-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 14:05:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'W')ell, no peak oilers are very forthcoming about making a prediction about WHEN we will see an end of our current booming trend in Science & Technology. They just don't want to think about it - because it interferes with their own religious beliefs derived from charts and graphs extrapolating petroleum depletion into the future.
You can't have an Olduvai Gorge if Sci/Tech is streaking forward at mind-boggling rates.
There is a consensus that peak oil has either already happened or it will occur over the next decade. It doesn't really matter. We're not talking about hundreds of years.
I really don't see how current trends in science and technology will mitigate the downslope in these timescales. Maybe some of the new stuff will save us, but it's a big ask. And if they do, I'm worried about the ecological implications as well.
I'd love to have your faith. But as with all absolute faith, I maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.
No really. You cannot have a collapse of civilization as long as Science and Technology are streaking ahead and making new discoveries and innovations all the time. It's just not going to happen. This is what has always saved human bacon in the past. This is why Malthus was so spectacularly wrong.
It's reasonable to look at the degree of progress in Science and Technology and conclude that the collapse of civilization is scarcer than hen's teeth. Certainly, there are adequate replacements for fossil fuels - Integral Fast Reactors, Thorium reactors, Small Modular Nukes of various kinds, Renewable of various kinds... There's all kinds of innovation and adaptation going on.
What we are NOT seeing is the world being hamstrung by shortages of energy to the point that R&D is being cut. On the contrary, we are seeing exactly the opposite - lots of energy/efficiency R&D is taking place, much of it highly promising.
The faithful are those that cling to a some sort of peak oil "End of Days" eschatology.
"End of Days" - what a strikingly religious conclusion. Reminds one of Noah's Flood.
by davep » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 18:27:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I') give up.
No, I'll engage once more.
You think that Fast Breeder or Thorium reactors are currently being built? Where? No current commercial nuclear plants being built are Fast Breeder or Thorium.
This is what James Hanson of NASA and global warming fame is recommending. He has recommended the plan outlined in Tom Blees'
Prescription For The Planet, 2008. Integral Fast Breeder reactors are the mainstay of that plan.
I'm taking my energy cues from Dr. James Hanson on this issue, thank you.
Sure, but no one is actually building them. Which is slightly more important.
What we think, we become.
by Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 18:58:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I') give up.
No, I'll engage once more.
You think that Fast Breeder or Thorium reactors are currently being built? Where? No current commercial nuclear plants being built are Fast Breeder or Thorium.
This is what James Hanson of NASA and global warming fame is recommending. He has recommended the plan outlined in Tom Blees'
Prescription For The Planet, 2008. Integral Fast Breeder reactors are the mainstay of that plan.
I'm taking my energy cues from Dr. James Hanson on this issue, thank you.
Sure, but no one is actually building them. Which is slightly more important.
Fourth Generation nuclear is not available at WalMart yet, you're correct.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '[')url=http://skirsch.com/politics/ifr/QAcongressKirsch.htm]Integral Fast Breeder Reactor Q&A[/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is not a long list of people who support it because hardly anyone knows about it. Hansen and Lynas just found out about it and Gore just found out about it from Hansen...
Hansen told Congress early on about global warming. Congress didn't listen. Who was right?
Here's a partial list of IFR supporters:
Dr. James Hansen, Columbia University, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Dr. Klaus Lackner, theoretical particle physicist at Columbia University
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute and advisor to the UN, also at Columbia
Dr. Bruno Comby, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power, Paris
Dr. Jean-Bernard Minster, U.C. San Diego professor of geophysics
Dr. Charles Archambeau, a geophysicist who did a study of Yucca Mountain for the DOE in 1989-90.
Dr. Doug Carroll, nuclear engineer at GE, retired
Dr. Richard Mattas, retired former manager of the US fusion research efforts, Argonne National Laboratory
Dr. Jasmina Vujic, chair of U.C. Berkeley Dept of Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Jeff Crowell, nuclear physicist at Sandia National Laboratory
Dr. Charles Till, former director of Argonne National Lab, retired
Dr. Yoon Chang, Till's successor at Argonne, recently retired
George Stanford, retired, scientist who worked on the IFR
California Lt. Governor John Garamendi
Who is opposed to it?
I don't know of a single person who opposes it who approached this from an open mind and was briefed by the scientists directly and is qualified in the nuclear physics enough to make a value judgment. At worst, they go away saying, "yeah, this could work" and agree that there isn't a clearly superior technology available as an alternative...
The opposition comes from people who haven't been briefed first-hand on the technology and/or who make associations with old nuclear technology or who really don't understand the technology and the alternatives.
And it will likely come from people who are simply misinformed and look for arguments to support their position. John Kerry's arguments against the IFR in 1994 fall into this camp. Blees's book,
Prescription For The Planet, examines each of Kerry's argument in Chapter 12. Charles Till's excellent article on the IFR was succinct about Kerry's arguments: His arguments against the merits of the IFR were not well informed and many were clearly wrong. But what his presentation lacked in accuracy it made up in emotion.