General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 13:40:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')We did this a couple of years ago about combined cycle and complexity. You are still being obtuse.
Not if you grasp 2nd law. It was covered in the paper.
But I do and the paper is badly flawed.
Doesn't negate 2nd law.
What does that mean?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o I don't. But you are still referencing a flawed paper as if the answer is there.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')ot. My quote was from William Catton.
Look above, you said, ' It was covered in the paper.'
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou ask a strawman question and now ask this!? You are kidding, right?
You posted this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')nd land that is used to feed ourselves was in use by other systems. So, is it that the 'other systems' are privileged to use resources but man is just a scourge?
I replied that we already appropriate 40% of NPP. Haven't we already gotten more than our fair share of that privilege?
No, you asked, 'How much more do you want?' It is an irrelevant question in the context of ecological impact of solar. We got on that tangent because you went there. You are arguing against solar from our present condition. I answered, 'I don't want' as moving to solar is not about 'more'. Your 'more' comment is pure obfuscation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')reat, then address the flaws in the paper.
What flaws do you refer to?
Are you really going to pretend you didn't see the post with quotes from the paper?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is clear that you snip and avoid and wave your 'second law' banner. The second law is just the way the universe works. It does not mandate that human actions are all bad.
Bad? Who said anything about bad? Or morals? 2nd law governs all physical activity, green, renewable or otherwise.
It tells us that there are limits to sustainability.
Yea, the sun will burn out in a few billion years...
Best, Dan
-
lakeweb
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Arizona
-
by KillTheHumans » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 16:29:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', ' ')SCORE!!!!
Of course.....which means the grid isn't the issue.....
Not.
The Western Transmission grid: Urgent call for Investment Lets take bets on how long people have been crying wolf ( or not )over needed grid investment? A decade? Since Jimmy declared we were running out natural gas and needed infrastructure investment for everything? Half a century when we DID need to invest in the grid to reach rural area's?
Myself, I think the grid being artificially constrained for whatever reason is great...it means people will be required to generate their own electricity, in their own way, in their own location, instead of whining for someone else to do it for them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Simply put, energy markets and growth in the West have outstripped a transmission system that hasn’t expanded meaningfully in over a decade.
Outstripped means to me that they can't handle the current load required. And since electrical loading is mostly a peak/offpeak issue, to which load might you be referring? If it can handle peak, it certainly doesn't require offpeak infrastructure. If it can't handle peak, it fails and you get rolling blackouts and such. So how many blackouts did Arizona suffer through this summer as a result of grid failure during peak times?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Today’s Western transmission system has many important
bottlenecks that limit the ability to use surplus power in
one area to help meet demand (or remedy shortages) in
other areas.
GOOD. Maybe it will teach silly Californians that the rest of the country doesn't exist to only ship those greedy bastards power when they won't allow offshore drilling, strangle onshore drilling, NIMBY construction of ANYTHING energy, etc etc.
Thats not a FAILURE, thats a FEATURE.
Just because those with excess can't move their product to a high priced market is hardly the United States having terrible grid problems. You are describing terrible PROFIT problems for somebody.
-
KillTheHumans
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Rockies
-
by yesplease » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 16:37:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('inculcated', 'A')h, efficiency. Yes, the ICE has an average motion component of 25%, so 6.75 quads are the net use.
If by average ya mean something like a Prius, then sure. Unfortunately, the average vehicle (including big SUVs/Vans/Pickups that aren't covered by CAFE) only gets ~17mpg EPA, which is probably a little less than 15mpg real world, or about a third of the mileage of a Prius. That being said, a Prius still is carries around one person most of the time even though it's designed for four. So... That hurts efficiency quite a bit too. When ya get down to it, individual transportation, even in climate controlled comfort, at the same speed, etc... only requires a tenth to a twentieth of the energy we use for it.
A peak in oil production is expected given that we've been wasting oil as fast as possible. There are limits naturally, we can't go down past ~10mpg, since some tractor trailers weighing ~40,000-80,000lbs can pull close to that. But, we've been wasting what we can.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 16:52:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')Yea, the sun will burn out in a few billion years...
The point is that there are limits to sustainability.
There is a limit on how much energy we can divert to human use from other systems and living organisms.
There is no "free floating energy" that we can take to fuel human needs that isn't already being used to fuel an ecosystem of other living things or drive a thermodynamic system.
We cannot practice "totalitarian" technology, like we have agriculture, where everything else must give up their energy to meet human needs.
There are limits to what we can do with renewable energy without detrimental harm to our ecosystem, biodiversity, and life support.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to energy expert John Holdren, the potential environmental problems with solar energy generation can be summarized as follows: ‘‘
Many of the potentially harnessable natural energy flows and stocks themselves play crucial roles in shaping environmental conditions: sunlight, wind, ocean heat, and the hydrologic cycle are the central ingredients of climate; and biomass is not merely a potential fuel for civilization but the actual fuel of the entire biosphere. Clearly, large enough interventions in these natural energy flows and stocks can have immediate and adverse effects on environmental services essential to human well-being’’ (Holdren et al. 1980, 248).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact that large-scale renewable energy generation will create a wide range of negative environmental disturbances could pose a problem for the long-term sustainability of solar energy capture and use. As outlined in the first sustainability condition above, renewable resources including solar energy can only be ‘‘harvested’’ at rates that do not exceed the respective regeneration rates.
If solar energy capture drastically disturbs important environmental functions, it is possible that these renewable energy production processes are not sustainable over the long run.
Limits to Sustainability
Garrett Hardin wrote:
"With the coinage of 'sustainable development,' the defenders of the unsteady state have won a few more years' moratorium from the painful process of thinking."
Last edited by
MonteQuest on Sat 01 Dec 2007, 17:07:03, edited 3 times in total.
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 » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 17:02:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', ' ')Just because those with excess can't move their product to a high priced market is hardly the United States having terrible grid problems.
They can't move the surplus do to a lack of
grid transmission capacity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o how many blackouts did Arizona suffer through this summer as a result of grid failure during peak times?
Didn't you read what I wrote? We built NG -fired generating plants around the perimeters of developments to provide for peak load because we
don't have grid transmission capacity to bring in surplus power from out of state.
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 Narz » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 18:17:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'T')he second law is just the way the universe works. It does not mandate that human actions are all bad.
Whoa. Where does Monte say "human actions are all bad"?
He often uses words like acceptable & unacceptable.
Like lakeweb says, moral imperatives are a human construct.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by yesplease » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 18:22:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'D')idn't you read what I wrote? We built NG -fired generating plants around the perimeters of developments to provide for peak load because we don't have grid transmission capacity to bring in surplus power from out of state.
And we built NG -fired generating plants because it was cheaper for the group making money off of construction to skimp on insulation and profitable for the companies selling energy since more of it was required to maintain the same temperature. We aren't going to build additional grid capacity because a significant portion of our use is deliberately inflated in order to increase profit. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rich MacMath', 'N')egawatts are cheaper than megawatts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by Narz » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 18:25:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')There is no "free floating energy" that we can take to fuel human needs that isn't already being used to fuel an ecosystem of other living things or drive a thermodynamic system.
How can you say that definitively?
If you put windmills on a lifeless rocky hillside who exactly are you "stealing the energy from"?
A bicycle allows a man to burn far less calories to get from point A to point B. Who is he stealing that energy from?
Obviously most innovations require the mining of resources but life is not a zero sum game just as Earth is not a closed system. We are constantly receiving new usable energy in the form of sunlight.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by Tyler_JC » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 18:28:11
Then build more power lines?
Is anyone seriously claiming that it is impossible to increase investment in our electrical grid?
Electricity spending as a % of GDP is around 2%.
A doubling of that expenditure would not bankrupt the USA nor would it even necessarily be highly disruptive to the economy.
If anything, it would be highly beneficial to the economy because all of the investment would be within the United States.
We're only talking about a 10% to 15% increase in capital investment.
I just don't see that as an impossibility.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
-
Tyler_JC
- Expert
-
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
-
by yesplease » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 18:32:47
I don't think expansion the grid is a priority right now due to the relatively high cost of raw materials, high demand (aka significant amount of waste), and potential for breakthroughs in distributed storage to render it obsolete for individual use. It seems like everyone is playing a waiting game in order to see what pans out.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 19:01:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')There is no "free floating energy" that we can take to fuel human needs that isn't already being used to fuel an ecosystem of other living things or drive a thermodynamic system.
How can you say that definitively?
If you put windmills on a lifeless rocky hillside who exactly are you "stealing the energy from"?
From the wind. Where does the energy in the wind end up? Who or what uses it? Hmmm? Do you posit that the wind has no effect on anything? It doesn't carry seeds or affect climate or weather? In order for windmills to work they must take energy from
someplace else.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, 1st law. Thus all energy that the earth receives is converted to other forms of energy or re-raditated back to space to maintain our temperarate biosphere. It is a system in balance.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "lifeless" rocky hillside on earth.
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 » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 19:05:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') don't think expansion the grid is a priority right now due to the relatively high cost of raw materials, high demand (aka significant amount of waste), and potential for breakthroughs in distributed storage to render it obsolete for individual use. It seems like everyone is playing a waiting game in order to see what pans out.
Yes, economies of scale in that are over.
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 Narz » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 19:38:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'F')rom the wind. Where does the energy in the wind end up? Who or what uses it? Hmmm? Do you posit that the wind has no effect on anything? It doesn't carry seeds or affect climate or weather? In order for windmills to work they must take energy from someplace else.
But do you have any proof that the damage they cause is substantial?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'E')nergy is neither created nor destroyed, 1st law. Thus all energy that the earth receives is converted to other forms of energy or re-raditated back to space to maintain our temperarate biosphere. It is a system in balance.
Well then we are part of that balance.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'B')TW, there is no such thing as a "lifeless" rocky hillside on earth.
I lived in Utah for awhile. There were some nearly lifeless hillsides there. I've never heard of a few windmills devastating an area. Change =/ devastate. The ecosystem will adapt. That is the law of life (adaptation).
You also ignore advances in efficiency. As if a computer chip holding a certain amount of data today uses the same amount of resources as a chip twenty years ago. Or as is carrying capacity is some static absolute reality that is not influenced by how we live.
You act as if the answer simply lies is x amount of people dying as if every human being is exactly the same in terms of their consumption & impact.
I'd wager North America could maintain it's present population if people had vastly different lifestyles than they do today. Without change perhaps not even half.
Why preach the messege that "we must initiate dieoff" instead of "we must live sustainably". If people truly understand the necessity of change they will have fewer children.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 20:09:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')Yea, the sun will burn out in a few billion years...
The point is that there are limits to sustainability.
There is a limit on how much energy we can divert to human use from other systems and living organisms.
You are, again, preaching to the choir.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')here is no "free floating energy" that we can take to fuel human needs that isn't already being used to fuel an ecosystem of other living things or drive a thermodynamic system.
You shower, cloth yourself, use a computer, eat cultivated food. How do you justify that?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e cannot practice "totalitarian" technology, like we have agriculture, where everything else must give up their energy to meet human needs.
There are limits to what we can do with renewable energy without detrimental harm to our ecosystem, biodiversity, and life support.
You are, again, preaching to the choir. But you won't say where the line should be drawn.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact that large-scale renewable energy generation will create a wide range of negative environmental disturbances could pose a problem for the long-term sustainability of solar energy capture and use. As outlined in the first sustainability condition above, renewable resources including solar energy can only be ‘‘harvested’’ at rates that do not exceed the respective regeneration rates.
If solar energy capture drastically disturbs important environmental functions, it is possible that these renewable energy production processes are not sustainable over the long run.
Limits to Sustainability
The paper is flawed, yet you still cite it. Amazing…
If you don't think it flawed, address the post where I question the numbers.
Best, Dan.
-
lakeweb
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Arizona
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 20:17:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'F')rom the wind. Where does the energy in the wind end up? Who or what uses it? Hmmm? Do you posit that the wind has no effect on anything? It doesn't carry seeds or affect climate or weather? In order for windmills to work they must take energy from someplace else.
But do you have any proof that the damage they cause is substantial?
That's what they said about CO2 emissions, water pollution, dams, deforestation, loss of habitats biodiversity, etc..
It's not about windmills per se, it's about the
scale required. At what scale do they become a detriment? We need to consider this is all I am saying.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell then we are part of that balance.
No, we are in overshoot from fossil fuels and now trying to make up the shortfall by the takeover method to fill it from other living things and systems. We already take 40%.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') lived in Utah for awhile. There were some nearly lifeless hillsides there. I've never heard of a few windmills devastating an area. Change =/ devastate. The ecosystem will adapt. That is the law of life (adaptation).
We are not talking about a few, we are talking about thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. The ecosystem may adapt by pushing us off the planet. Die-off is the sequel to overshoot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou also ignore advances in efficiency. As if a computer chip holding a certain amount of data today uses the same amount of resources as a chip twenty years ago. Or as is carrying capacity is some static absolute reality that is not influenced by how we live.
I ignore nothing, that's why I bring this up.
Doesn't matter how you live when you are billions beyond the capacity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou act as if the answer simply lies is x amount of people dying as if every human being is exactly the same in terms of their consumption & impact.
Doesn't matter when you are billions beyond capacity. We could all live like peasants and we would still be in overshoot subject to a die-off. Carrying capacity isn't how many people you can feed, it 's about the ability of the environment to tolerate the load.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d wager North America could maintain it's present population if people had vastly different lifestyles than they do today. Without change perhaps not even half.
You'd lose, I am afraid.
The sustainable population of the US is estimated at somewhere around 150 to 200 million. At current level using renewables, 50 million. Here's one paper from Pimentel.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rosperity and Population
If the U.S. were to move to a solar energy-based economy and become self-sufficient, what would be our options and levels for prosperity? Even with self-sustaining solar energy systems replacing our current dependence on fossil energy, the energy available would be less than one-half of our current consumption level. If the U.S. population remained at its current level of nearly 300 million, a significant reduction in our present standard of living would follow. This would occur, even if all the energy conservation measures known today were adopted.
If, however, the Americans wish to continue their current high level of energy use and standard of living and prosperity, then its ideal population should be targeted at about 50 million people. This is, of course, unlikely to occur. Reducing the U.S. population to 200 million, while reducing the consumption of energy and other resources by one-half, is a first difficult step. Then, with the effective development of solar energy technologies, a quality of life similar to that of our European friends would be possible. The United States has been fortunate to have abundant land, water, solar energy, and biological resources, but we must balance population size with our natural resources. Let us not waste time and undertake positive steps to ensure that our next generation will have the opportunity to enjoy an ample food supply and the personal freedoms that we have treasured.
Land, Water and Energy Versus The Ideal U.S. Population
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy preach the message that "we must initiate dieoff" instead of "we must live sustainably". If people truly understand the necessity of change they will have fewer children.
Because we cannot support 6.7 billion people sustainably. We are on our way to 9.1 billion in 43 years before stabilization.
Connect the dots.
We reduce the population by design or by default to nature in a die-off.
Make your choice, knowing the latter is the worse outcome.
Let's not take this thread down the population debate track. There are numerous thread underway on it already. I know it's hard as population is tied to everything else.
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 » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 20:25:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')
The paper is flawed, yet you still cite it. Amazing…
If you don't think it flawed, address the post where I question the numbers.
Best, Dan.
I cite the main point; that there are limits to what we can do with renewables and we need to consider that fact as we scale them up.
Errors in numbers don't change this basic fact. I've been through this guantlet for over 37 years with everything from "off-roaders" to developers who cherry-pick points while ignoring the thesis of the argument.
There are limits and we need to respect them.
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 » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 20:36:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')You shower, cloth yourself, use a computer, eat cultivated food. How do you justify that?
Attacking me doesn't change the fact that we power our computers, eat cultivated food and shower with fossil fuels as the primary energy source.
Half of us exist only because of fossil fuels.
When that phantom goes away, and we resort to takeover from other living things and systems for our energy, that is going to have a huge impact on them.
We are all party to this overshoot. I have no children, live debt free, and devote a lot of volunteer time to organizations to try and bring about meaningful change. My footprint is small and getting smaller. But, like most people I am stuck with what I have to work with. I have elected DNR, no organ transplants, no chemotherapy or other extraneous measures to prolong my life should I become terminally ill or in a bad accident.
If we were 2 to 3 billion and going after renewables for our energy, scale wouldn't be a problem.
Peace.
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 lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:18:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper', 'B')ased on using combinations of these technologies in suitable geographic regions, an estimated 46 quads of solar energy (mostly as electricity) could be produced each year (Pimentel et al, 2002b). Note, 46 quads is slightly less than half of the 100 quads of fossil energy currently consumed in the U.S. each year (USBC, 2003).
What!? He is doing it again. Comparing heating value inputs to electrical demand like they are the same.
We demanded 12 quads of electrical energy in 2002. 5 quads at the wheels of transportation.
Energy Flow$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper', 'F')urthermore to produce the 46 quads of solar energy would require the use of a U.S. land area that is nearly equal to total U.S. cropland now in production.
Where does this claim come from? How do they arrive at this number? For one, 46 quads are almost three times our electrical and transportation demand. Even if evs did as poorly as 50%, it is still more than twice as much.
The Pimentels don't seem to have a grasp of energy quality. You can not directly compare heating value to electrical energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper', 'T')he estimated land area required to produce just the electricity used by each American each year ranges from 0.01 ha (0.03 acre) for wind power, parabolic troughs, and photovoltaics.
Ha! A number. First, at face value. .02 * 300E6 people is 6 million acres.
U.S. Fact Sheet
Total farmland 938 million acres.
So, they make the claim that it would take an equal area of agriculture for half our energy needs and then immediately contradict it with there own numbers!! Just amazing.
Now, how much electrical emery can we get from .02 acres of land? Southwest, 7.5kwh/day/m^2 in annual terms. 81 * 7.5 * .3( for heliocentric) is 182 kwh per day per person. 72 exajoules/year for the country. Total electrical demand in this country is 12 exajoules/year.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paper', 'I')f the present population of Americans were to rely fully on the 46 quads of solar energy, each person’s energy consumption would have to be reduced by one-half.
But, you are just not getting this, are you?
Best, Dan.
--
-
lakeweb
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Arizona
-
by lakeweb » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:28:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
I cite the main point; that there are limits to what we can do with renewables and we need to consider that fact as we scale them up.
Errors in numbers don't change this basic fact. I've been through this guantlet for over 37 years with everything from "off-roaders" to developers who cherry-pick points while ignoring the thesis of the argument.
There are limits and we need to respect them.
And again, I am not arguing there are limits. But you have been citing a paper with very flawed numbers. How can there be a reasonable assessment of what can be accomplished if the premise is just plain wrong?
Best, Dan.
-
lakeweb
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Arizona
-
by MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:39:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', ' ')And again, I am not arguing there are limits. But you have been citing a paper with very flawed numbers. How can there be a reasonable assessment of what can be accomplished if the premise is just plain wrong?
How can you say there are limits and that that premise is just plain wrong in the same paragraph?
Just curious...that's how it reads.
Care to elaborate?
Flawed numbers don't negate the thesis of the paper.
Last edited by
MonteQuest on Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:42:50, edited 2 times in total.
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
-
Return to Peak Oil Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
