Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 11:40:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'H')e's a True Believer(TM)


It's not belief.

I've already said hundreds of times, I don't think it's possible to accurately predict the future. This is because the world is simply too chaotic (as in Chaos Theory).

All you can do is look at strong current trends and project them out into the future. This is what Hubbert curve people do when attempting to gauge fossil fuel depletion. Project that trend out far enough and you see peak oil doom. No one gives them any shit about it around here.

But you can also plot curves that show the exponential trend of evolution or scientific advancement. And I have posted them in other threads. If you project THIS trend out into the future, you see something like The Singularity.

My posts have been about these opposite-pointing trends and WHY this is so.
Carlhole
 

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby davep » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 13:12:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'H')e's a True Believer(TM)


It's not belief.

I've already said hundreds of times, I don't think it's possible to accurately predict the future. This is because the world is simply too chaotic (as in Chaos Theory).

All you can do is look at strong current trends and project them out into the future. This is what Hubbert curve people do when attempting to gauge fossil fuel depletion. Project that trend out far enough and you see peak oil doom. No one gives them any shit about it around here.

But you can also plot curves that show the exponential trend of evolution or scientific advancement. And I have posted them in other threads. If you project THIS trend out into the future, you see something like The Singularity.

My posts have been about these opposite-pointing trends and WHY this is so.


Look, I'd love this to be true. It's just that looking at trends for resource depletion is not at all like looking at trends for innovation. At some point there is bound to be a bottleneck in innovation. This has already happened to an extent in the algorithmic side of AI. Whereas oil depletion will continue apace. Peak oil is a geological inevitability, continuing scientific advance to reach a singularity is anything but.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 13:46:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'H')e's a True Believer(TM)


It's not belief.

I've already said hundreds of times, I don't think it's possible to accurately predict the future. This is because the world is simply too chaotic (as in Chaos Theory).

All you can do is look at strong current trends and project them out into the future. This is what Hubbert curve people do when attempting to gauge fossil fuel depletion. Project that trend out far enough and you see peak oil doom. No one gives them any shit about it around here.

But you can also plot curves that show the exponential trend of evolution or scientific advancement. And I have posted them in other threads. If you project THIS trend out into the future, you see something like The Singularity.

My posts have been about these opposite-pointing trends and WHY this is so.


Look, I'd love this to be true. It's just that looking at trends for resource depletion is not at all like looking at trends for innovation. At some point there is bound to be a bottleneck in innovation. This has already happened to an extent in the algorithmic side of AI. Whereas oil depletion will continue apace. Peak oil is a geological inevitability, continuing scientific advance to reach a singularity is anything but.


Well, 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.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby 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.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby 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.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby davep » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 14:40:22

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 bit is important. Read it and try to understand. Science and technology can continue to improve while everything is hunky-dory. So you have the horse before the cart. Why? Well let me explain.

If and when things do start going batshit mental, science will suffer. It's not the progress of technology itself that ensures we lead secure, energy abundant lives. Science and technology only prosper because we lead secure, energy abundant lives. And if it can't deliver your silver bullet over the next few years, the conditions for continuing progress in science and technology will be lost. Science and technology do not exist in a vacuum outside of society.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 18:05:30

$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.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby 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.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby 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.


The story below just happens to be out recently. It's just one example of a stream of continuous news articles about small modular reactors being developed. Blees outlined a plan to keep proliferation potential very low. Thorium reactors have this safety feature because of their physics. There's lots of thorium. It's a question of design, ease, safety, security. This can be arranged.

NBF

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')yperion is developing a 25-MW fast reactor that uses uranium nitride fuel and lead bismuth eutectic coolant. Hyperion power generation wants to factory mass produce these reactors and to eventually build hundreds each year. Hyperion Power Generation has letters of intent with several other international companies.

The parties aim to build an operational prototype by 2017 or 2018, said Mike Nevetta of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, which operates the Savannah River Site. He also said Thursday that the demo reactor will not connect to the grid but will produce electricity for internal use on site.

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions is talking with five or six other companies about building prototypes at the complex "in which manufacturers of small reactors can come and prove their technologies," said Nevetta.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 19:31:31

Dr. Hanson is listed as one of the directors of the Science Council for Global Initiatives.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..
9. The IFR creates a huge economic opportunity for the US to be the leading clean energy supplier to the world. Nuclear is the lowest cost scalable energy technology we have. The IFR is our best nuclear technology. If we focus on the IFR and invest in ramping up the volumes and reducing the cost, the IFR will be cheapest power source that every country will want everywhere. Our economy will benefit and our planet will too.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 15 Sep 2010, 20:34:10

James Hansen keen on next-generation nuclear power

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Australian 03/10', '[')b]RENEWABLE energy won't save the planet so it's time to go nuclear, according to one of world's most high-profile climate scientists.

"We should undertake urgent focused research and development programs in next generation nuclear power," said atmospheric physicist James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York.

While renewable energies such as solar and wind were gaining in economic competition with coal-fired plants, Professor Hansen said they wouldn't be able to provide baseload power for years to come.

Even in Germany, which pushed renewables heavily, they generated only 7 per cent of the nation's power.

"It's just too expensive," said Professor Hansen, an expert in climate modelling, planetary atmospheres and the Earth's climate.

"Right now, fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, except for operating nuclear plants," he said on the first day of a lecture tour in Australia.

According to Professor Hansen, because the threat of global warming was so serious, nations such as the US, China and even Australia must crank up support for so-called third and fourth generation nuclear systems.

"Current nuclear plants are the second generation. The third generation is ready to build now," he explained, pointing to conventional light water reactors, which generated heat by the fission of uranium fuel. Two fourth-generation technologies are on the drawing board. Fast reactors use liquid sodium metal as a coolant for the fission of metallic solid fuel, including existing nuclear waste and weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

Thorium reactors use fluoride salt as the medium for the energy-producing nuclear reaction, so they don't require production of fuel rods.

Professor Hansen admitted he was a late convert to advanced nuclear power. "But fourth generation solves two of the problems that made me sceptical," he said. ...
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby davep » Thu 16 Sep 2010, 03:19:56

Fourth Gen nuclear indeed sounds interesting. But you can't get it in Walmart.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby NickyBoy » Thu 16 Sep 2010, 05:20:33

There are a number of interesting trends in regards to the singularity event, but I doubt it will involve any form of true AI.

What is far more likely is a form of DI (dependant intelligence) that has fantastic computational/adaptation abilities but still requires an organic partner to provide a 'sentient' component.

As technology shrinks and human life comes to rely on IT systems for socializing and information retrieval in greater and greater amounts it is only a matter of time before we are directly and physically partnered up. A utility with data storage, data retrieval and communication technologies whose adaptability is designed to support our whims (rather than being used to generate a unique intelligence) is a natural progression of current day technology when blended with human requirements.

Those expecting a singularity event should not be looking at supercomputers or AI development. You should instead be looking at smart-phones and social networking infrastructures.

If I may make a set of bold predictions (at me to some 'list' if you like :P )

1.Within the next 10 years I would expect hands-free kits to shrink to the point where they can be unobtrusively worn as a series of distributed components (contacts, ear-beads and throat sub-vocalisers) on the head 24/7 without anyone noticing them.

2.Improvements in internal artificial replacements for human body parts will eventually result in these unobtrusive hands-free kits being worn as sub-dermal (beneath the skin) accessories.

3.A generation of children will grow up with these accessories (much like the current generation with smart-phones and my generation before them grew up with home PC's) and their bodies/thought processes will adapt to them like any other tool introduced to humanity (this trend can be seen today with mobiles - children have incredibly well developed and dexterous thumbs in comparison to their grandparents...all thanks to using mobiles from a young age). This 'new generation' will learn to use the sub-dermal accessories instinctively without any need for advanced 'scifi' neural interfaces.

4. Social networking infrastructures and designs will improve to the point where every facet of a humans life can be shared in real-time. Think 'blog combined with webcam combined with forums' running all the time and shared with all your friends.

5. We now have a network of sentient machine-aided intelligences that can interact with each other on an instinctive level forming a larger 'meta-mind' whose intelligence increases alongside technology. The singularity approaches and humans are bang smack in the middle of it. We have, in fact, reached what modern day AI developers seek to create (a network of intelligent nodes with dynamically forming connections, the ability to learn and an imagination) without the need for an actual AI.

These 5 steps are all possible with technology available today its just hideously expensive (and in some cases dangerous). Give us 30 years for the technology to become common place and for a generation to grow up with this new kit and way of thinking and point .5 is almost a certainty. Nothing short of a societal/technological collapse is going to stop this.
User avatar
NickyBoy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: The Independent: "Revenge Of The Nerds"

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 16 Sep 2010, 09:29:34

A Scientometric Prediction of the Discovery of the First Potentially Habitable Planet with a Mass Similar to Earth

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he search for a habitable extrasolar planet has long interested scientists, but only recently have the tools become available to search for such planets. In the past decades, the number of known extrasolar planets has ballooned into the hundreds, and with it the expectation that the discovery of the first Earth-like extrasolar planet is not far off. Here we develop a novel metric of habitability for discovered planets, and use this to arrive at a prediction for when the first habitable planet will be discovered. Using a bootstrap analysis of currently discovered exoplanets, we predict the discovery of the first Earth-like planet to be announced in the first half of 2011, with the likeliest date being early May 2011. Our predictions, using only the properties of previously discovered exoplanets, accord well with external estimates for the discovery of the first potentially habitable extrasolar planet, and highlights the the usefulness of predictive scientometric techniques to understand the pace of scientific discovery in many fields.
Carlhole
 
Top

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron