Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

It's here

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Re: It's here

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 02 Jul 2007, 21:09:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'A')nd you know, there was a time when trips to the moon, feeding more than a million people and having rapid discussions with people on opposite sides of the world were all things of science fiction. Science fiction has a way of becoming science fact.

Trips to the moon are science history. Never happen again.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby eric_b » Mon 02 Jul 2007, 22:44:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'S')orry, but this just wait for "The Singularity" is the biggest pile of bull crap I ever heard. Nano tech not far behind.

Science-fiction is fun, but not to be taken literally.


I agree completely. Especially 'the singularity' rubbish.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')A common but not entirely rational perspective.

First and foremost, the "just wait" part is all wrong. It's going to be really hard to keep things going for another few decades in order for various techno-fix's to be possible. It's not a matter of just waiting to be saved, it's a matter of doing everything we can right now to ensure that we can make it that far. And BTW, that doesn't mean business as usual.


(...)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')As for singularity and nanotech being bull crap; do you believe that human intelligence is the greatest level of intelligence that the universe will permit? And do you believe that we can not mimic what nature does with technology? Because the singularity is simply greater intelligence, and nanotech is what nature has being doing for billions of years. There is currently no evidence suggesting that either is impossible (quite the opposite in fact).


Human 'intelligence' is an aberration and blight on this world. We've shown, through our actions, that we have no place on this planet. Unfortunately we will likely take many other species with us as we journey towards extinction. Life on this world has survived for billions of years, it does not need help or 'improvements' from our kind.

There's more intelligence and wisdom in a single celled organism than all of human knowledge combined.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby NWMossBack » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 00:10:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')
WTF IS MYCOPLASMA? you ask?

Mycoplasma genitalium is a bacterial plasmoid slime that lives on your balls and/or labia.

Excellent.

What they have accomplished is not WORLD PEACE. It is not ZERO POPULATION GROWTH (Which I solved earlier in this post), or even ENERGY TOO CHEAP TO METER.

No, friends. What has been developed is the equivalent of JOCK ITCH... with FRECKLES.

NOW IF someone can explain to me how JOCK ITCH will save the world....



Friggin laghing my ass off!!!! Did no one else read this jewel?

Why is anyone still discussing anything biodude posted???
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby KevO » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 05:16:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')an still wants to be God.


actually, Man is God.
He's just busy thinking he's not
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT USA
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby bobcousins » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 05:23:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'A')s for singularity and nanotech being bull crap; do you believe that human intelligence is the greatest level of intelligence that the universe will permit? And do you believe that we can not mimic what nature does with technology? Because the singularity is simply greater intelligence, and nanotech is what nature has being doing for billions of years. There is currently no evidence suggesting that either is impossible (quite the opposite in fact).


I had a look at the Singularity Institute. It's clear they have no clue what they are doing. They are unable to define intelligence, they just say it's whatever the brain does. Their plan to develop intelligence is not to mimic the brain, but to build one from first principles. They are blundering in the dark. Then they not only have to build an AI , but an AI smarter than a human, and also capable of reprogramming itself... we are nowhere near knowing how to do any of those things. It is absolutely absurd to suggest it will happen in 20 years.

The timescale is based on a simplistic extrapolation of current trends, but there is good reason to believe these can't continue. Moore's Law starts to hit limits. Manned space travel has hardly become routine, it's bloody difficult and expensive. The Moon programme was a one-off. Fusion research crawls along, it's borderline. Whatever happened to supersonic passenger travel? We have gone backwards there.

No doubt we have had a spectacularly ride up the roller-coaster. But we inevitably reach a crest, and we realise not everything we conceive can be achieved.

Nano scale particles are incredibly damaging to lungs. It's already been shown that modified genetic material jumps species in the wild. We already screw the environment with our existing chemical and biological pollution. Nanotech, GMOs, and custom made organisms push the level an order of magnitude higher. Do we need all that stuff, just to make a few people richer?

Technology has brought benefits. We now have enough knowledge to know the costs and limits of technology too. There comes a time when we need to say "enough is enough".
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby JRP3 » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 09:54:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eric_b', '
')
Human 'intelligence' is an aberration and blight on this world. We've shown, through our actions, that we have no place on this planet. Unfortunately we will likely take many other species with us as we journey towards extinction. Life on this world has survived for billions of years, it does not need help or 'improvements' from our kind.

There's more intelligence and wisdom in a single celled organism than all of human knowledge combined.


Actually for tens of thousands of years mankind has existed on the planet with less impact than a horde of locusts. It's not really accurate to use the last 200 or so years of human history to judge the entire species.
User avatar
JRP3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon 23 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby azreal60 » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 14:26:07

Actually JRP3, you might want to alter your numbers some. Mankind has existed sustainably for Millions of years without overpopulating the earth. It's only in the last 10 thousand, since the agricultural revolution, that we began to breed and breed in ever increasing numbers. The reasons for this? An ever increasing supply of food due to totalitarian agriculture. Read the Ishmael series by Daniel Quinn. Best overview I can give you.
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby XOVERX » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 14:54:15

While I personally believe that the Kurzweilian Singularity is near, my thoughts are that the Singularity may move humankind "from the frying pan into the fire."

What with too large adrenal glands and a too small prefrontal cortex, I can only conclude that after the Singularity occurs, humankind's created intelligence will have little use for too often irrational, dangerous carbon-based hominoids running around mucking up everything.

I think Bill Joy and others have some legitimate concerns regarding the Singularity, which looms closer with every passing day.

Tell you what: If my brain were downloaded, I'm not real sure I would want fascists running things. And I'm extremely certain I'd want to get rid of nuclear weapons, other armaments, and, in my "perfect" downloaded understanding, nutcase human beings.

The future is not simply a big bowl of cherries merely because of the reality of exponentially growing technology. Assuming, of course, that hydrocarbon technology can last until the Singularity can be achieved. Which I do not necessarily concede.
User avatar
XOVERX
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby Bioman » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 16:56:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bioman', '
')You're trying to tell people that without oil there will be mass uncertainty, chaos, doom, war, food shortages, etc... and that hence increases in fertility rates are to be expected. But that's mere speculation. The reality is that there are countless alternatives to oil.


Please quote these alternatives, EROEI, initial investment costs, and a timeframe for implementation, as well as who the monkey's that will be financing the project/s and who will be carrying them out.


Sugarcane ethanol - a simple first generation biofuel:

-competitive at $30/35 per barrel
-'EROEI': between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1
-reduces GHGs by up to 80% compared to gasoline
-production costs decreased by 70% over the past 25 years
-productivity increased by up to 100% over the past 25 years

-scope for ethanol yield increase: ethanol yields expected to be doubled by 2015
-scope for biomass yield increase: 20% (100MT per hectare) by 2015

-carbon-negative scenario 1: first-generation ethanol extraction, biochar from bagasse
-carbon-negative scenario 2: first-generation extraction, cofiring of biomass residues with CCS

Countless examples of similar crops, conversion techniques, with more or less comparable values (other tropical grass species, eucalyptus, sweet sorghum, cassava, etc...).

Source: the gigastically vast internet. Seriously, this is basic knowledge. If you don't know this, please read up on biofuels.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Says who?

You're starting from the idea that there are no 'readily available' alternatives to oil/fossil fuels. But there are.


Again, please provide credible sources to support this statement.


I don't have credible sources for the existence of technologies such as wind and solar power, biomass and biofuels, batteries and ultracapacitators.

I'm just day-dreaming here. The wind-turbine near my town is a figment of my imagination.

Sorry, no sources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Good lord. You don' t even know what I am talking about. :roll:

Standard attempt at discouraging the opposition, nice try but not good enough. Roll on, brother.

That was not me speaking. Montequest said I don't know what he's talking about.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '
')Was it not one of your cornucopian ideas raised in this thread that proposed we expand our resource mining operations to the moon?. If that is possible, then why not the stars as well, in fact, according to the tack that you take in your previous posts, we should be able to avoid the declining fertility rates of 2070 by expanding to out to the stars.

Nah, I just gave the example of extra-terrestrial resource extraction to disprove the myth that we are living in a "closed system". Solar energy from space is the best example to disprove the myth. It's an old idea.

I was making a theoretical point. That's all.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You say: yes, Peak Oil.

I say: no, because under these circumstances (the fact that by 2070/2100 population growth declines), food is not a limiting factor, and energy isn't either.


Common-sense and a few spare moments of thinking-time on this, gives rise (in my case) to the following thought: There will come a point where you will lack sufficient land area per head to supply the food and energy required. How will you deal with this?

Well, the discussion is not about the fact that the planet we inhabit has a given surface area that will be difficult to change by humans.

The question was: how many humans can this surface area support?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Sure there are, but there are also limits to population growth. By 2050 we stabilize, from 2070/2100 onwards we decline.

Sources please, or a logical explanation of how you came to this conclusion if the former is not available.

Please see the thread. This source has already been given. It's a very well known projection by the only credible organisation that makes such projections, to know, the United Nations Population Division.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Oh please.

You say, there is a predetermined carrying capacity.

But a carrying capacity for who? For what?

-For people and their consumption patterns that remain static throughout history?

-Or for dynamic and ever-changing societies that innovate, invent and continuously alter their consumption patterns?


These educated lads and lasses seem to think that not only must our consumption patterns change, but that we must change or face hefty consequences:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afr ... 22undp.htm

That we should, in fact, consume less than we do now. How do you propose to keep the current standard of living that the 1st world masses are certainly happy with, and consume less energy at the same time?

I can tell you now, many of the Joe Six packs i've shown the MDI air car to, gag at the thought of having to buy and drive such a "poxxy POS". Their words, not mine. They are the market you are going to have to appeal to.


Mmm, you refer to a tex 10 years old. But I agree, we will have to consume more efficiently.

There's absolutely no reason for the average American to be obese. It's unhealthy.

Europeans have begun to eat less meat. A very significant, albeit small, development.


You see, the point is that most growth (in food consumption, energy consumption, etc...) is and will be occuring in the developing world.

It is however absurd to say things like "if these billions would all eat/waste energy as much as the average American, then we need 9 more planets." Theoretically this may be the case.

But in the real world societies and consumption patterns change over time. By the time these people in the developing world have reached a level of development as high as in the West, the very population of the West has not only declined significantly (Japan, Europe), but it has had time to devise new technologies and consumption patterns that are significantly more efficient that today's.

That is why dynamic projections are the only thing worth looking at from a scientific point of view.

Moralistic projections ("if they.... we need 9 planets") are worth a lot too, but they are good for an ethical or moral debate. Not for a scientific one.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The world standard of living is not going to continue to rise in the developing world for the next 50 years.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I agree, it is not going to rise. It is going to skyrocket, as we develop new technologies.

Developing countries are leapfrogging nations. They jump beyond the petroleum era and straight into the post-oil world, becoming more prosperous in the process.


Sources or other evidence please. Another case of making a statement without evidence to back it up. Standard cornucopian fare.

Mmm, most people would say that for many Chinese people standards of living have improved over the past two decades.

With a yearly economic growth of 10% over the past decade, this can be expected, even though that growth may not have been distributed entirely fairly.

One thing is certain, the number of people living in poverty in China has decreased dramatically.

Same story for India and Brazil and other emerging economies.

Do you really want me to give you a source for this?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')But why do you think both man and nature are static? I see them as highly dynamic.

The laws of plenty change constantly; but this requires a reading of the history of science and society.


That's great, care to elaborate on the dynamism of the human race, life, the universing and everything?

No, but if someone is stubbornly pushing an absurdly static view about societies, then one must indeed push the button and say: stop, man and society is not static, it evolves. It's sad that in PO circles one often has to state the obvious.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')-No doubt primitive man used to warn that if you deplete the rainwater bucket near the cave, the Gods will kill us all.

-Luckily for mankind, a few dudes got their gear together, drilled a hole and found water.

-Today, we desalinate the Oceans.


Those that have to, do (such as the Middle East). Those that don't take the cheapest alternative, that will also maximise profits. And that isn't desalination. Australia is only beginning to switch now, as like the Middle East, it will soon be the only way to ensure a continuous potable water supply to the masses.

By the way, you could benefit from following and reading the following link:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Desa ... 8493.shtml


But I'm not saying desalinating is an ideal solution to water scarcity. I gave the example merely to show that man evolves, invents, innovates. When faced with a problem, he solves it.

Quite frankly, mankind has become quite proficient at solving problems. (We want to go to the Moon, but getting there is a problem. We solve the problem. We went to the Moon.)

Today, there are quite a few more scientists and innovators alive than ever before, and that collective brainpower leads to an exponentially growing number of scientific and technological breakthroughs.

In this context, there is no reason to assume that we cannot solve such relatively minor issues like gradual oil depletion. It will not be easy, but it won't be that difficult either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And voila, both the laws of nature and the laws of plenty radically changed.


I hope for your benefit that you are not including the laws of physics under the "Laws of nature" header.

As a relativist, I do. Reality changes all the time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Mm, I have to disagree.

I'm sorry to say, but many of the world's most advanced brains are biofoolish.

None of the world's most advanced brains are doomerish or Peak Oilerish. Peak Oil brains write silly blogs and own obscure little websites with lots of pop-ups.



Evidence please?, or is that asking too much?

And while you are at your keyboard, please provide evidence in support of your sweeping statement: "None of the world's most advanced brains are doomerish or Peak Oilerish". I'd like to see you tally and compare the numbers present in both categories. Would you also please provide a definition of an "Advanced Brain" and why you are insinuating that one must be a biofool to have one?


Ok, let's not dwell on this too much. All I know is that there are more Nobel prize winning professors working on bioenergy, than there are exploring and publishing about Peak Oil.

But that's an authority argument and that doesn't necessarily count.

Let's keep it at this: (1) bright minds have discovered a potential problem (Peak Oil), (2) picked up by less bright minds who turn it into a fantasy novel; (3) while the brightest minds are working towards solutions to solve the problem of Peak Oil, and while (4) shrinks and sociologists take note of how late-capitalist apocalyptic discourses are formed, by observing the Peak Oil community.

Th uber-brightest are working on such things as synthetic biology.
User avatar
Bioman
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 08 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby keehah » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 17:59:16

Biomansays Ethanol from Sugar-cane: 'EROEI': between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1

Post the link bioboy and we will have a look. Right now your all marginally informed talk.

Edit- Thanks for the link to link to link to link Bioman. EI does not include any externalities such as land cost and soil sustainability.
http://www.unica.com.br/i_pages/files/pdf_ingles.pdf
Last edited by keehah on Wed 04 Jul 2007, 18:55:28, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
keehah
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The Maple State
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby Bioman » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 19:37:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('keehah', 'B')iomansays Ethanol from Sugar-cane: 'EROEI': between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1

Post the link bioboy and we will have a look. Right now your all marginally informed talk.



Ten fundamental principles of net energy
Lead Author: Cutler J. Cleveland (other articles)
Article Topics: Net energy analysis and Energy
This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Peter Saundry (other articles)
Last Updated: January 8, 2007

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ten_fund ... net_energy

And check the first source under "Further reading".

You're welcome.
User avatar
Bioman
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 08 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby Judgie » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 20:49:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('keehah', 'B')iomansays Ethanol from Sugar-cane: 'EROEI': between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1

Post the link bioboy and we will have a look. Right now your all marginally informed talk.


Don't worry, he's started doing it. That is all I was asking for Bioman :)

Now we can check your sources for ourselves.

However i'm going to ask for you to supply sources for your statements in your 2nd to last post above. You do it for one, then you do it for all. For example, just which Noble prize winner to your knowledge is working on Peak Oil solutions at the moment?

Cheers. :)
Judgie
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon 07 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby eric_b » Wed 04 Jul 2007, 01:19:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bioman', '
')
Sugarcane ethanol - a simple first generation biofuel:

-competitive at $30/35 per barrel
-'EROEI': between 8 to 1 and 10 to 1
-
(...)


Blah. Blue. Blee.

Lorenzo, BiGG.. 'Bioman' , whomever you are. Apparently too cowardly to use your real name. These topics have already been beat to death in other threads. Now that you've finally shown your hand I can ask the mods to move this thread out of 'current energy news' where it does not belong.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us
Top

Re: It's here

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Wed 04 Jul 2007, 16:15:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Also, to avoid skewing the male/female ratio, you might need to have Male and Female Baby Credits, otherwise people might try to have more female offspring.
your friends the communists tried this but we wouldn't allow it. We threatened them with nuclear annihilation for attempting universal birth control. F#ck the republicans.


"We"? "republicans"? "Communists"? Explain.

The arguments for Eugenics evolve; the arguments against it have not. At some point the arguments against it start to sound like arguments for overpopulation, cerebral palsy, and Down's syndrome.

If we are content with giving future generations Super-problems, lets at least give them Super-abilities. Beavis and Butthead cannot and will not cope. I see no negative to eliminating problems and granting advantages in vitro. I see it as an expression of love above all else.

One person I talked to started quavering about the "damage" such super-smart people would do. I thought this was a stupid argument so I killed and ate him.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Do we need all that stuff, just to make a few people richer?


...is the real question.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests