General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by Doly » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 04:13:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')What? ya think we were just collectively retarded and squishy headed before the 19th and 20th centuries?
Of course not - few had time to really think.
I don't think that time to think was the major issue. After all, nowadays people are often so stressed with their jobs that they mostly avoid thinking out of work time. I think the reason has more to do with factors like:
1) Greater population. The more people, the more clever people.
2) Access to research tools (such as microscopes, precision instruments). There is a limited number of things you can do with your hands and eyes.
3) Widespread education.
4) Research being recognized as a useful goal in itself.
-

Doly
- Expert

-
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
-
by rwwff » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 10:20:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')Dude - we/they can make a small piece of junk spin indefinately on a table top = fusion.
I blame hollywood, the sci fi genre in general and more specifically spiderman2 the movie

Yeah, that was the second most rediculous sci-fi concept I've seen. The worst is of course faster than light travel.. I understand that its a requirement for the show to work as dramatic entertainment, but I still find it very difficult to suspend belief when someone makes a working fusion reactor i a small building, or travels from star to star in 5 seconds flat.
There is a reason I use the term hollywierd!!
On the other hand, there are no physical laws in play that exclude the possibilitiy of fusion power generation, so it can't be dismissed out of hand simply because sci-fi movie makers have used it as a prop. I don't think the odds of success are very high, especially not in this reduced time frame, but it does seem to be the end-game wager that is already on the table.
The real question is alluded to in the original post, do the lights stay on long enough for this technology to make it from a "just maybe it'll work" to powering the grid in fifty years?
-

rwwff
- Intermediate Crude

-
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 15:29:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')Correct me if I misread the original post... the topic as I understand it was invention requiring excess energy.
My argument is that the inventions we need are likely at least decades away, but are within the realm of possibility.
No, bringing invention to fruition makes a
new demand on energy.
Decades? The inventions we need to bring to fruition
now are wind, solar, and other renewables. Mass transit systems, mega expansion of the electrical grid and electrical power generation. These will require enormous amounts of new energy consumption to design, manufacture and deliver.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-

MonteQuest
- Expert

-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by rwwff » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 16:31:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')My argument is that the inventions we need are likely at least decades away, but are within the realm of possibility.
No, bringing invention to fruition makes a
new demand on energy.
Yes, it does make new demands on energy, which is why it is important for the price of oil to steadily climb in order to surpress stupid-uses demands. Only those demands which provide a rather massive energy payoff, such as building a nuclear power station, should be economically viable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Decades? The inventions we need to bring to fruition
now are wind, solar, and other renewables. Mass transit systems, mega expansion of the electrical grid and electrical power generation. These will require enormous amounts of new energy consumption to design, manufacture and deliver.
While it should be noted that I have absolutely nothing against building jillions of wind turbines and solar panels, and even providing hefty tax rebates for folks installing solar panels at home, I don't think we come anywhere near close to our electrical needs with renewables. The grid is certainly a problem, but I think the companies involved will be able to keep manage.
However, the idea that we are going to deploy even the small amount of renewable tech that we are capable of producing just doesn't seem realisitic. I'd bet on practical fusion before I'd bet on mass deployment of renewables; and I don't have much confidence that practical fusion is likely eveb within the next hundred years.
So, my opinion on this is that the inventions that we really need in order to meet the demands of peak oil are legislative, not technical. We need massive regulatory relief and liability protection, and we need laws that make NIMBY's pay for the inconveniences they place on the rest of the system. Safety to the point of starvation is not a good plan in my book.
by MonteQuest » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 17:17:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')Yes, it does make new demands on energy, which is why it is important for the price of oil to steadily climb in order to surpress stupid-uses demands. Only those demands which provide a rather massive energy payoff, such as building a nuclear power station, should be economically viable.
GDP cares not whether the use is stupid or not. So, everyone who has a stupid use job or priduct goes pound sand while we use their "freed-up" energy to build nukes?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')We need massive regulatory relief and liability protection, and we need laws that make NIMBY's pay for the inconveniences they place on the rest of the system. Safety to the point of starvation is not a good plan in my book.
Safety to the point of sustainability is though, isn't it?
You still need new energy to build nukes.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by rwwff » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 17:43:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')Yes, it does make new demands on energy, which is why it is important for the price of oil to steadily climb in order to surpress stupid-uses demands. Only those demands which provide a rather massive energy payoff, such as building a nuclear power station, should be economically viable.
GDP cares not whether the use is stupid or not. So, everyone who has a stupid use job or priduct goes pound sand while we use their "freed-up" energy to build nukes?
Nah, they can go find something productive to do with their time. Something that doesn't simply leach off of cheap oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e need massive regulatory relief and liability protection, and we need laws that make NIMBY's pay for the inconveniences they place on the rest of the system. Safety to the point of starvation is not a good plan in my book.
Safety to the point of sustainability is though, isn't it?
by ubercrap » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 12:34:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')Yes, it does make new demands on energy, which is why it is important for the price of oil to steadily climb in order to surpress stupid-uses demands. Only those demands which provide a rather massive energy payoff, such as building a nuclear power station, should be economically viable.
GDP cares not whether the use is stupid or not. So, everyone who has a stupid use job or priduct goes pound sand while we use their "freed-up" energy to build nukes?
Nah, they can go find something productive to do with their time. Something that doesn't simply leach off of cheap oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou still need new energy to build nukes.
Yes, but you get that energy by taking it from people who aren't truly productive, and you take it from them with massive hikes in the price of oil. Those jobs which can't be sustained at the $100/bbl and $200/bbl price points need to be terminated, badly. If they can't find a job, they can go do something like manicure lawns with reel mowers, hoes and rakes; drug around by hand in a big red wagon. Nothing but sweat input, all dollars out are income.
by MonteQuest » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 13:55:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')
Nah, they can go find something productive to do with their time. Something that doesn't simply leach off of cheap oil.
Yes, but you get that energy by taking it from people who aren't truly productive, and you take it from them with massive hikes in the price of oil. Those jobs which can't be sustained at the $100/bbl and $200/bbl price points need to be terminated, badly. If they can't find a job, they can go do something like manicure lawns with reel mowers, hoes and rakes; drug around by hand in a big red wagon. Nothing but sweat input, all dollars out are income.
A prime example of another hand-waving dismissal by RGR.
Do you even try to think these things through?
Good grief!
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-

MonteQuest
- Expert

-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 21:48:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Do you even try to think these things through?
Yes.
Well, honestly, from your responses it does not appear so. There is so much you just gloss over or hand wave off.
Not the Big Picture I see.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by rwwff » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 22:21:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Do you even try to think these things through?
Yes.
Well, honestly, from your responses it does not appear so. There is so much you just gloss over or hand wave off.
Not the Big Picture I see.
I think we do see mostly the same thing ahead, but I think you are missing a piece of the big picture. Not so much in regard to what will happen, but rather in what the heavy-user countries have already decided they are going to attempt. Basically, the folks of your persuasion want to see a powerdown, return to basics, sustainable ag, etc. The populations of these nations on the other hand have considered the question (organically, as a 200 gigaton organism), and have decided they'd rather take a one in twenty shot at continued, unlimited growth, instead of accepting a rationally constructed period of contraction.
The things I am suggesting are in concert with this gamble. I know that this is exactly the kind of thing the various green movements want to not only avoid, but avoid talking about; and thats ok with me.
The Gamble means that humanity, as an organism, has already decided it is going to use every last drop of recoverable oil, every last pound of diggable coal, and every last rad of uranium on the planet in order to achieve the mythical and glorious objective of unlimited, eternal growth. In a symbolic, metaphorical sense, Gaia has gotten tired of all her carbon being swiped and locked away, she knows that fusion doesn't work on any scale smaller than a star, and so she invented us for the sole, exclusive purpose of recovering that which was stolen and putting it back where it belongs. After which we can all go crawl under a rock and die for all she cares.
ie, Homo Sapiens. The Reset Switch.
by MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 00:19:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I think we do see mostly the same thing ahead, but I think you are missing a piece of the big picture. Not so much in regard to what will happen, but rather in what the heavy-user countries have already decided they are going to attempt.
Hardly, I have written many threads and blogs on this alone.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-

MonteQuest
- Expert

-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 03:37:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')I think we do see mostly the same thing ahead, but I think you are missing a piece of the big picture. Not so much in regard to what will happen, but rather in what the heavy-user countries have already decided they are going to attempt.
Hardly, I have written many threads and blogs on this alone.
Then we'll just have to disagree about the level of disagreement then.
Finished "The Weather Makers." Silly fool apprently still thinks China and India aren't going to build a whole fleet of coal fired generators to power those hundreds of millions of new air conditioners.
by rwwff » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 09:21:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'T')he populations of these nations on the other hand have considered the question (organically, as a 200 gigaton organism), and have decided they'd rather take a one in twenty shot at continued, unlimited growth, instead of accepting a rationally constructed period of contraction.
Humanity isn't an organism. Different people will try different things.
One termite turns left, one termite turns right.
One bee flies to yellow, one bee flies to white.
Yet the termite and the bee also have life as a collective organism; and their genetic propagation is really indepedent of any particular termite or bee's survival.
Humans are different only in the scale of our software and our capacity to devastate the landscape. We are social mammals; part of us works like an individual, we go left to the dentist, we go right to the grocery store. Some of us like roses, some of us like orchids. Some of us catch fish, some of us grow corn. The other part works on the scale of nations or groups of nations; and one of those groups is a collection of the US, China, and India (Japan, Austrailia, etc included). This collection can't just up and give a speech, but neither can a termite mound; but you know what the termine mound is doing by observing its overall impact. We know what this Humanity Mound is doing also by its overall impact; and in this particular case this Humanity Mound has decided that it will risk everything in an attempt to continue growth.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, and fusion is merely a decade or few away, and maybe there is really enough power available at that time to do a roll out of new fusion plants; but I'm afraid the odds are pretty long, and the stakes are counted in billions of human lives. But what is plainly obvious is that this collective organism has already placed the wager on the table; its just a matter of time before the results are read and the winners paid.