General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by futuretrip » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 14:43:50
sorry 'bout that, was feeling negative last night, and didn't have facts to back up solar, However, if the country can afford the powerlines, it seems that such a large geographical area dotted generously with wind and (here's my naive part) solar, the intermittancy problem could be better dealt with.
-
futuretrip
- Wood
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by Dezakin » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 17:27:31
Nuclear is a better solution now. You dont have to build nearly as many pumped hydro plants, its demonstrably scalable on the hundreds of gigawatts capacity, and its cheaper for grid distribution.
-
Dezakin
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by MonteQuest » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 21:19:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et's see a link to your study to support your position.
Ah, the
burden of proof, yet another fallacious argument. Can't say I'm surprised at this point. Could you be specific in the next fallacious comment you make?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mails thesis: The case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis. Even if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second. He hopes his hypothesis is wrong and that rapid slowing of growth and huge improvements in technology will result in earlier congruence between the two figures. But it is time that the burden of proof shifted to the 'cornucopian optimists';
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 » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 21:26:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') They are vague statements that provide little to no information as to what level of energy consumption and use the authors assumed.
They assumed a level is
less than the current American standard, which was what you were railing against. Where the little notes specific about how much less? No, but they don't have to be to invalidate your claim.
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 » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 21:31:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('futuretrip', 'I') can't believe it, people of your intelligence saying that solar energy is not capable of defeating darkage.
Capable is not the question. It's the impact of the
scale of doing so.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure, there will be "some" pollution, so what!
That kind of thinking is what created the current ecological crisis.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure it will cost a lot to implement (but not more than wind or it will never happen anyways), But what's the alternative...
Recognize and accept that there are limits.
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 futuretrip » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 23:27:33
I'm reading more here, man this is serious! I realize that by the time all the permitting is done (nuclear, especially) it might be too late.
Solar, is not really polluting, Imagine the whole desert being "dished" or troughed over for illustration... It seems that all the "dust and smoke" would still amount to a small fraction of America's per year oil usage. After that, it would be a simple displacement of sorts, people would go there to work (and burn gas) instead of somewher else. It's clean after that because it allows the implementation of EV's and thus less need for oil
I know I'm dreaming so I'll stop!!!
-
futuretrip
- Wood
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by FreakOil » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 23:58:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'N')uclear is a better solution now. You dont have to build nearly as many pumped hydro plants, its demonstrably scalable on the hundreds of gigawatts capacity, and its cheaper for grid distribution.
It's also a temporary fix. Check this out:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379
Another thing to consider is radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. You could bury it and guard it, but that assumes that you have a government, or some other authority, that can store and guard that waste. I shouldn't have to say this, but there's never been a government or any other form of authority that's lasted for hundreds of thousands of years.
-
FreakOil
- Coal
-
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun 04 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Hong Kong
-
by futuretrip » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 00:01:11
I can't stop...
I would rather see all the RE as giant turbines out at sea...
I must argue, though, the impact of the scale of it all (RE) would be wonderful! More jobs, more EV's, possibly even a net sustainabity of current population (that's wishful) without all the mess.
I can't help to be positive about the massive scale of something that is inherently clean, thus less eco mess, not more.
An example is the little 2x2 in solar cell I have, (copper indium), it's embedded in glass for long life and uses 1/100th the amount of material needed, does not rely on solar grade silicon which is in demand and puts out a reasonable amount of led light. All I see is a little pullution from the trace amount of metals.
If everyone scaled this up, wouldn't that be better?
-
futuretrip
- Wood
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by Tyler_JC » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 00:45:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'N')uclear is a better solution now. You dont have to build nearly as many pumped hydro plants, its demonstrably scalable on the hundreds of gigawatts capacity, and its cheaper for grid distribution.
It's also a temporary fix. Check this out:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379Another thing to consider is radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. You could bury it and guard it, but that assumes that you have a government, or some other authority, that can store and guard that waste. I shouldn't have to say this, but there's never been a government or any other form of authority that's lasted for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why does it need to be guarded?
Bury it hundreds of feet deep in a dry cave and seal it up like a fall out shelter.
"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 » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 00:55:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hey assumed a level is less than the current American standard, which was what you were railing against.
No I was not. None of my post indicate that I am against decreasing energy consumption AFAIK. It may be possible that you misread or misunderstood what I said, but most of it has centered around how we needlessly consume energy. The point being that would could cut consumption w/o a significant quantifiable loss in utility.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')here the little notes specific about how much less? No, but they don't have to be to invalidate your claim.
What claim? The only thing I claimed regarding them was that without specific information, discussing them was fruitless. Like I said...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')...]all of those use qualifiers to describe a quantity. In other words...
-standards of living lower than the current North American average
-based on use of renewable solar energy
-standards of living lower than the current North American average
Are not quantities. They are vague statements that provide little to no information as to what level of energy consumption and use the authors assumed.
W/o that information we can't say much about whether they are valid or not. The only versions with fairly concrete energy usage assumptions were clearly antiquated. As for the others, w/o information we can't say much about whether or not they accurately reflect the our carrying capacity given a reasonable set of conditions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et's see a link to
your study to support
your position.
Ah, the burden of proof, yet another fallacious argument. Can't say I'm surprised at this point. Could you be specific in the next fallacious comment you make?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mails thesis: The case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis. Even if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second. He hopes his hypothesis is wrong and that rapid slowing of growth and huge improvements in technology will result in earlier congruence between the two figures. But it is time that the burden of proof shifted to the 'cornucopian optimists';
Like I said before, w/o more information about specifics, this may or may not be accurate. If you would post Smail's paper, this could be discussed, but as it stands, who knows...
That being said, the hypothesis seems to border on trivial.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second.
Since it's very unlikely the first figure will equal the second figure, then it will likely be greater than or less than it at some later point in time. It's analogous to a statement like...
Oil production will likely peak so long as the first production figure exceeds the second.
Last edited by
yesplease on Thu 06 Dec 2007, 00:56:31, edited 1 time in total.
$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 FreakOil » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 00:55:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'N')uclear is a better solution now. You dont have to build nearly as many pumped hydro plants, its demonstrably scalable on the hundreds of gigawatts capacity, and its cheaper for grid distribution.
It's also a temporary fix. Check this out:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379Another thing to consider is radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. You could bury it and guard it, but that assumes that you have a government, or some other authority, that can store and guard that waste. I shouldn't have to say this, but there's never been a government or any other form of authority that's lasted for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why does it need to be guarded?
Bury it hundreds of feet deep in a dry cave and seal it up like a fall out shelter.
Maybe it can, but there are doubts:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to a submission by the Royal Society to Britain's House of Lords inquiry on nuclear waste, all countries with a nuclear waste problem are considering underground disposal as "the only viable long-term option". However, it appears that every country that has tried to find a safe burial site has failed. Cases in point include the United States at Yucca mountain in Nevada, Germany at Gorleben and Britain in Cumbria. In these cases, the countries were faced with more geological complexities and political opposition than expected (Edwards, 1999).
The environmental disadvantages of burial of nuclear wastes include the spread of radioactivity into the surrounding environment. If absorbed into the food chain, it can cause unpredictable genetic damage. Furthermore, some elements have a half-life of up to 100,000 years, and so the effects of nuclear contamination would be permanent and almost irreversible (Tengelsen, 1995).
http://earthwatch.unep.net/emergingissu ... vilian.php
-
FreakOil
- Coal
-
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun 04 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Hong Kong
-
by yesplease » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:06:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')t's also a temporary fix. Check this out:
As
blending catches on, that waste may be very profitable in the future. Even if it were able to be
transmuted into something that isn't radioactive, it will likely cost more than storing it, and it will remove a potential source of profit in the future. In other words, the most profitable avenue may be storage because it's cheaper than "cleaning it up", and still able to be used as a commodity in the future should the opportunity arise.
$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 » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:07:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat claim?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')h yes, "adequate". According to the overview Ludi linked, one of the low end figures for world carrying capacity was a billion, and assumed...
Quote:
At US standard of living with current (1970) technology and production.
With assumptions like this, I'm surprised the carrying capacity wasn't lowered.
That wasn't the assumption, except from the study you cherry-picked to support your claim of that assumption.
The
assumption was:
Using standards of living lower than the current North American average, estimates of carrying capacity using energy as a metric range from 1 to 3 billion people.
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 06 Dec 2007, 01:08:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat claim?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')h yes, "adequate". According to the overview Ludi linked, one of the low end figures for world carrying capacity was a billion, and assumed...
Quote:
At US standard of living with current (1970) technology and production.
With assumptions like this, I'm surprised the carrying capacity wasn't lowered.
That wasn't the assumption, except from the study you cherry-picked to support your claim of that assumption.
The
assumption was:
Using standards of living lower than the current North American average, estimates of carrying capacity using energy as a metric range from 1 to 3 billion people.
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 yesplease » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:14:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat claim?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')h yes, "adequate". According to the overview Ludi linked, one of the low end figures for world carrying capacity was a billion, and assumed...
Quote:
At US standard of living with current (1970) technology and production.
With assumptions like this, I'm surprised the carrying capacity wasn't lowered.
That wasn't the assumption, except from the study you cherry-picked to support your claim of that assumption.
The
assumption was:
Using standards of living lower than the current North American average, estimates of carrying capacity using energy as a metric range from 1 to 3 billion people.
In that quote I was talking only about that specific case I quoted. No other... It wasn't cherry-picked, unless you consider discussing the accuracy of studies that present quantified situations, instead of studies that present vague situations cherry-picking. If that's the case, then sure, I'll cherry-pick quantifiable items if I'm talking about quantifiable items, instead of looking at qualitative items if I'm talking about quantifiable items. Why? Because I'm addressing quantifiable views, not qualitative views.
P.S. Double post.
$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 » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:18:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second.
Since it's very unlikely the first figure will equal the second figure, then it will likely be greater than or less than it at some later point in time.
Huh?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second.
This means if the carrying capacity is found to be 5 bililon instead of 2 to 3 billion and the population stabilizes at say, 7.5 billion instead of 10 billion, then the hypothesis stands.
The first figure exceeds the second.
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 yesplease » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:32:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second.
Since it's very unlikely the first figure will equal the second figure, then it will likely be greater than or less than it at some later point in time.
Huh?
The value of a function can increase, decrease, or stay the same. In terms of populations, it's very unlikely for something to stay the same unless it goes to *zero, So all we have left is for population to increase from some point in time, or decrease from some point in time. If it decreases, it was because of some key resource constraint. Along those lines, the hypothesis is trivial if it's assumption is that the population will decrease with some key resource constraint. It's akin to stating oil will peak if we can't pump any more of it out per some time period.
It's begging the question.
*In that case discussion really is moot.
$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 » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:40:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')The value of a function can increase, decrease, or stay the same. In terms of populations, it's very unlikely for something to stay the same unless it goes to *zero, So all we have left is for population to increase from some point in time, or decrease from some point in time. If it decreases, it was because of some key resource constraint. Along those lines, the hypothesis is trivial if it's assumption is that the population will decrease with some key resource constraint.
Say what?
Here's his hypothesis:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mail identifies two irreconcilable trends of thought: first the predictions that the human population will grow to some 10 to 12 billion in 50 year's time; second, scientific estimates that only 2 - 3 billion people can be sustainably supported at a comfortable level.
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 yesplease » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 01:57:04
If you don't understand me, I'm not sure how to put this, but I suppose I've got to start somewhere. You've posted the hypothesis. Now, what is the conclusion of the paper?
$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 » Thu 06 Dec 2007, 02:52:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f you don't understand me, I'm not sure how to put this, but I suppose I've got to start somewhere. You've posted the hypothesis. Now, what is the conclusion of the paper?
The same.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is thesis: The case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis.
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 26 guests
