Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:41:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Err, I was saying that I don't think seed dispersal is an genuine risk for wind power.


You just don't get it, do you?

The point I was making was that on the scale required to tap into solar, wind, tides, etc, as alternatives to fossil fuels will have huge environmental impacts.

Harnessing the energy of the wind for human use means some other system is no longer going to get that energy.

Using fossil fuels is the drawdown method. Reverting to solar is going back to the takeover method. It is called that because that is precisely what we do; we takeover the energy already being used by other living things and thermal systems and appropriate it for human use. We already appropriate 40% of NPP.

Look at the enviromental crisis as a result of that.

How much more can we takeover?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:46:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Judging from past comments, I think Monte's ideal is a high death rate/low energy consumption society.


Sorry, that's nature's ideal for a population in overshoot.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:48:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e already appropriate 40% of NPP.
What NPP? Source?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:56:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Apparently you guys don't realize that saying things like this makes you look like a complete fruitcake. Get up on stage at the public forum, Monte. On one side we have qualified mainstream scientists like the authors of the Solar Grand Plan, proposing that the U.S. get 69% of its electricity in 2050 from solar, for about the cost of the Iraq war. Great idea. On the other side, we have environmental crazies worried about the horrifying effects of utilizing too much sunlight. :roll: Got tinfoil?


Apparently, you don't grasp the scale or the science behind that statement.

Read this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')arge-scale renewable energy generation is likely to have severe environmental impacts It has been commonly assumed that renewable energy generation is more environmentally friendly than the use of nonrenewable energy sources such as fossil fuels or
nuclear power (Hayes 1977, Lovins 1977, Brower 1992,
Boyle 1996). While this assumption may be correct, it must
be realized that the capture and conversion of solar energy
will have significant negative environmental impacts,
especially if they are employed on such a large scale as
to supply nearly 100% of the U.S. energy demand (Abbasi
et al. 1995, Trainer 1995a).

Limits-to-Sustainability
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:07:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Not at all. I'm sure Monte himself will confirm that he is in favor of boosting the death rate as a solution to peak oil. Last I heard, he was toying around with the idea of re-releasing the small pox virus, as a way to re-establish natural predators for the human race.


As opposed to letting nature do it, yes? Dr. Bartlett agrees; we need to act first.

We need to stop trying to save everyone from everything at the expense of carrying capacity.

Mankind's population control has always been, and always will be disease. Letting nature back into the picture comes by design or by default.

Default is the worse choice.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:16:29, edited 1 time 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."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:14:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e already appropriate 40% of NPP.
What NPP? Source?


Asked, answered and linked to for 3 1/2 years by me.

Google it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:18:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')s opposed to letting nature do it, yes? Dr. Bartlett agrees; we need to act first.

Mankind's population control has always been, and always will be disease. Letting nature back into the picture comes by design or by default.

Default is the worse choice.
Oh great, eugenics. As long as you "go first" it's alright by me. Lead by example Monte! :-D
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:21:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e already appropriate 40% of NPP.
What NPP? Source?


Asked, answered and linked to for 3 1/2 years by me.

Google it.
I did. According to Pimental, from dieoff dot org, in the most extreme case we appropriate about 25%.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese land-use changes contribute 17.5 Pg of organic matter to the total humans affect each year, yielding a final sum of 58.1 Pg on land. The losses raise the calculated potential NPP of terrestrial ecosystems to 149.6 Pg (132.1 + 17.5 here). Thus, humans now appropriate nearly 40% (58.1/ 149.6 Pg = 38.8%) of potential terrestrial productivity, or 25% 160.1/(149.8 + 92.4) Pg = 24.8%1 of the potential global terrestrial and aquatic NPP.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 04:54:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')here? I couldn't find any discussion along the lines that Monte raised.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')r that covering the ground with solar panels of a medium-sized state could have local, regional, or even national ecologic consequences.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining.
So... As per your statement$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat the consequences might be, of the grand solar plan, are simply not considered because
Some of these consequences are addressed.Sorry, you've lost me. You simply quote a section that talks about suitable land. Nothing to do with the consequences of such a vast enterprise, unless you mean that the consequences of solar are different to the consequences of coal mining.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')n terms of MQ's specific statement$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')es. How many people here think there is excess solar energy not being used that strikes the earth?

The thermodynamic equalibrium we have with space gives us our temperate earth climate. Of the solar energy that strikes the earth, some is re-radiated back into space....but the rest is entirely absorbed by living things or thermal systems that affect ocean temps, weather, albedo, etc.

There is no excess solar energy not being used. It is all used.

With already appropriate 40% of NPP. How much more solar energy can we rob from other lifeforms and thermal systems?It's either blatantly wrong, or laughable. The Earth has about 500x10^6 km^2 of surface area[1]. Carbon emissions result in an increase in energy trapped on the earth by about 1.5W/m^2[2]. So, lets say that these solar thermal installations will supply about 4 trillion kWh/year[3], about all of what we use right now in terms of electricity. This is about 460x10^9W, and is what comes out of the available solar budget, so to speak. Otoh, at 1.5W/m^2[4], and about 5x10^14 m^2 of surface area, Carbon dioxide results in 7.5x10^14W extra. The difference between trapping an extra 7.5x10^14W via Carbon emissions, and taking 4.6x10^11W via solar thermal, is why worries about reducing the amount of energy available are laughed at.No, they're laughed at because the numbers look so small. CO2 is long lived in the atmosphere. So we'll just be adding to the extra heat trapped, anyway. Maybe not as much as if we continue with fossil fuel energy, but still additional. And I don't know if there are any other consequences. The article certainly didn't show that any effort at all had gone into looking at what the consequences might be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')n fact, I found no concern of consequences but did read this one paragraph dismissal of resource concerns:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ritics have raised other concerns, such as whether material constraints could stifle large-scale installation. With rapid deployment, temporary shortages are possible. But several types of cells exist that use different material combinations. Better processing and recycling are also reducing the amount of materials that cells require. And in the long term, old solar cells can largely be recycled into new solar cells, changing our energy supply picture from depletable fuels to recyclable materials.Which looks like fingers crossed, to me.How does that look like fingers crossed? Because it is guessing at what might be possible in future. They stated up front that this was the answer and that all the technology needed was already here, with an implicit assumption that any resources needed would be available.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t glosses over these because it's an article, not a paper or in depth look at the proposed system.Fine, but then why link to it if you don't want people to discuss it? The article itself doesn't fully address the problem, for the reasons I've mentioned. Why should I try to find out more about this grand plan, if the article doesn't give me any reason to think that this is a good plan? It also doesn't say what lobbying is going on to get the plan adopted. If that implies that no lobbying is going on, then the authors themselves think it has no chance, so why should I?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article assumes that energy consumption growth continues (which is right) but it never even questions that economic growth cannot possibly continue indefinitely (implicitly assuming that there are no vital resource shortages for society).Why would it question that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely? That's one of those basic assumptions the comes from living on a finite planet. They also assume other things such as people will eventually die, but they don't include them in every article involving people, because it's obvious.What? The reverse assumption is explicit in the article. Perhaps you didn't read it? Their projections for 2050 and 2100 show that they think economic growth will continue for at least that long, yet never validate that assumption. The problems we have are because this obvious fact (that economic growth is unsustainable) is completely ignored by almost everyone, including the authors of the grand plan article.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, do you think it remotely likely that this grand plan will be adopted, or is it just 6 pages of wishful thinking from a group of technologists?I don't think it will be adopted because it would likely reduce the costs of energy, and externalities, for everyone. It's quite hard to make money on something where the available supply isn't expected to diminish for a great deal of time and there aren't negative effects that can be taken advantage of in a financially profitable manner. ;)You're talking only about the raw fuel source, the sun. As is so often ignored, even harnessing renewable energy takes finite resources. OK, so you don't think it will be adopted, so why present it as a possible solution? Are we finished with the solar grand plan discussion?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 05:52:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')orry, you've lost me. You simply quote a section that talks about suitable land. Nothing to do with the consequences of such a vast enterprise, unless you mean that the consequences of solar are different to the consequences of coal mining.
You stated that they hadn't addressed possible consequences, or something similar, I showed they had illustrated one that pstarr had brought up in the article.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')n terms of MQ's specific statement$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')es. How many people here think there is excess solar energy not being used that strikes the earth?

The thermodynamic equalibrium we have with space gives us our temperate earth climate. Of the solar energy that strikes the earth, some is re-radiated back into space....but the rest is entirely absorbed by living things or thermal systems that affect ocean temps, weather, albedo, etc.

There is no excess solar energy not being used. It is all used.

With already appropriate 40% of NPP. How much more solar energy can we rob from other lifeforms and thermal systems?
It's either blatantly wrong, or laughable. The Earth has about 500x10^6 km^2 of surface area[1]. Carbon emissions result in an increase in energy trapped on the earth by about 1.5W/m^2[2]. So, lets say that these solar thermal installations will supply about 4 trillion kWh/year[3], about all of what we use right now in terms of electricity. This is about 460x10^9W, and is what comes out of the available solar budget, so to speak. Otoh, at 1.5W/m^2[4], and about 5x10^14 m^2 of surface area, Carbon dioxide results in 7.5x10^14W extra. The difference between trapping an extra 7.5x10^14W via Carbon emissions, and taking 4.6x10^11W via solar thermal, is why worries about reducing the amount of energy available are laughed at.
No, they're laughed at because the numbers look so small. CO2 is long lived in the atmosphere.
I'm going to disagree with you here. It's far more likely that the concern MQ illustrated, that all energy is used, and something like this will take some away from the current lifeforms on the Earth, even though we're already destroying species at record rates in the usual ways, is laughable, because we're adding energy to the ecosystem at a much higher rate than we could remove it, even if we replaced all of our fossil fuel electricity generation with solar thermal. That's a far more convincing reason as to why the idea of stealing energy from nature will have little impact, at least compared to numbers looking small, IMO. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o we'll just be adding to the extra heat trapped, anyway. Maybe not as much as if we continue with fossil fuel energy, but still additional.How are we adding heat to the system by taking it from the system? If the Earth traps however much energy from the sun, and we take some small amount, it'll have that much less.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article certainly didn't show that any effort at all had gone into looking at what the consequences might be.This is why I asked if you read the article. They stated concerns about land use, and illustrated that if including the land used for mining, fossil fuels have greater and more destructive land use requirements. That is a case where the article was looking at what a consequence might be. I think that constitutes effort.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ecause it is guessing at what might be possible in future. They stated up front that this was the answer and that all the technology needed was already here, with an implicit assumption that any resources needed would be available.Well, what resources are needed? I'm pretty sure that if the sun and land aren't there any more, we won't have much to worry about, so those are a given. ;) What resource used in concentrated solar plants do you feel will be constrained in the future?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t glosses over these because it's an article, not a paper or in depth look at the proposed system.Fine, but then why link to it if you don't want people to discuss it?There's nothing preventing you from doing further research into it and any potential consequences, like I have wrt MG's statement about it stealing energy from the ecosystem.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article itself doesn't fully address the problem, for the reasons I've mentioned. Why should I try to find out more about this grand plan, if the article doesn't give me any reason to think that this is a good plan?Because it would require reams of data and simulations regarding construction and resource consumption, that would take far more than ten or twenty pages.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t also doesn't say what lobbying is going on to get the plan adopted. If that implies that no lobbying is going on, then the authors themselves think it has no chance, so why should I?Actually, you are precisely the person who could do any lobbying. Those who proposed this are few in number, but if other people, like us, evaluate the idea and consider it worthwhile, we can lobby. That, and there probably are people lobbying for it, it's just that they don't have billions of dollars like the fossil fuel companies, so the only course left for getting something like this recognized is if a bunch of people get behind it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article assumes that energy consumption growth continues (which is right) but it never even questions that economic growth cannot possibly continue indefinitely (implicitly assuming that there are no vital resource shortages for society).Why would it question that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely? That's one of those basic assumptions the comes from living on a finite planet. They also assume other things such as people will eventually die, but they don't include them in every article involving people, because it's obvious.What? The reverse assumption is explicit in the article. Perhaps you didn't read it? Their projections for 2050 and 2100 show that they think economic growth will continue for at least that long, yet never validate that assumption.At least for that long is not indefinitely, so I don't see where you're getting that assumption from in that article.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he problems we have are because this obvious fact (that economic growth is unsustainable) is completely ignored by almost everyone, including the authors of the grand plan article.That's a pretty big statement, do you have any proof of this? Keep in mind, stating that energy consumption will grow a certain amount by some time in the future is not stating the economic growth is sustainable. It also depends on how we define economic growth, so that would be great too.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, do you think it remotely likely that this grand plan will be adopted, or is it just 6 pages of wishful thinking from a group of technologists?I don't think it will be adopted because it would likely reduce the costs of energy, and externalities, for everyone. It's quite hard to make money on something where the available supply isn't expected to diminish for a great deal of time and there aren't negative effects that can be taken advantage of in a financially profitable manner. ;)You're talking only about the raw fuel source, the sun. As is so often ignored, even harnessing renewable energy takes finite resources. OK, so you don't think it will be adopted, so why present it as a possible solution? Are we finished with the solar grand plan discussion?I think it's a viable solution, just like I think electric velomobiles are viable for most personal transportation, but because of constraints on profitability I don't think those ideas could get past our ruling bodies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 06:21:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Not at all. I'm sure Monte himself will confirm that he is in favor of boosting the death rate as a solution to peak oil. Last I heard, he was toying around with the idea of re-releasing the small pox virus, as a way to re-establish natural predators for the human race.


As opposed to letting nature do it, yes? Dr. Bartlett agrees; we need to act first.


Interesting. What makes you say that Dr. Bartlett agrees? Do you have a citation?
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 06:33:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Apparently you guys don't realize that saying things like this makes you look like a complete fruitcake. Get up on stage at the public forum, Monte. On one side we have qualified mainstream scientists like the authors of the Solar Grand Plan, proposing that the U.S. get 69% of its electricity in 2050 from solar, for about the cost of the Iraq war. Great idea. On the other side, we have environmental crazies worried about the horrifying effects of utilizing too much sunlight. :roll: Got tinfoil?


Apparently, you don't grasp the scale or the science behind that statement.

Read this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')arge-scale renewable energy generation is likely to have severe environmental impacts It has been commonly assumed that renewable energy generation is more environmentally friendly than the use of nonrenewable energy sources such as fossil fuels or
nuclear power (Hayes 1977, Lovins 1977, Brower 1992,
Boyle 1996). While this assumption may be correct, it must
be realized that the capture and conversion of solar energy
will have significant negative environmental impacts,
especially if they are employed on such a large scale as
to supply nearly 100% of the U.S. energy demand (Abbasi
et al. 1995, Trainer 1995a).

Limits-to-Sustainability


I checked out the impacts in that paper. Boy, there's some real scary show-stoppers in there: coolant leaks, removal of shade trees, visual glare, burn and eye hazard (light beam), noise and aesthetics, bird and insect kill...

Image
The horror! The horror!

What a farce. You folks are grasping at straws. "Insect kill". Ha ha ha ha
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 07:04:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') showed they had illustrated one that pstarr had brought up in the article.
OK, one consequence may be the use and destruction of land. But, whilst they addressed it to some degree, that degree was minimal, presumably assuming that it was good enough to point out that the land use looks less destructive that the land use for coal fired generation. There's not hint that they have done an exhaustive examination of the land use issue, however. So you found one small area of consequences that they looked at. I got the impression that you thought they'd addressed a lot more.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'N')o, they're laughed at because the numbers look so small. CO2 is long lived in the atmosphere.
I'm going to disagree with you here. It's far more likely that the concern MQ illustrated, that all energy is used, and something like this will take some away from the current lifeforms on the Earth, even though we're already destroying species at record rates in the usual ways, is laughable, because we're adding energy to the ecosystem at a much higher rate than we could remove it
I think Monte's concern was much broader based. Sunlight is not just energy, but a particular form of energy, which the article proposes to turn into heat (since that is what it'll end up as. What benefits to the eco-system are removed by our acquisition. Ultimately, this will add more heat, not remove it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article certainly didn't show that any effort at all had gone into looking at what the consequences might be.
This is why I asked if you read the article. They stated concerns about land use, and illustrated that if including the land used for mining, fossil fuels have greater and more destructive land use requirements. That is a case where the article was looking at what a consequence might be. I think that constitutes effort.Well, they clearly put effort into publicizing a plan that they think has merit. Clearly, they needed to determine where to put this solar plant, so no extra effort there. Illustrating that the use of land was potentially less destructive than coal mining (which it probably wouldn't replace until the end of the century) hardly constitutes effort at looking at all the consequences of the plan.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ecause it is guessing at what might be possible in future. They stated up front that this was the answer and that all the technology needed was already here, with an implicit assumption that any resources needed would be available.Well, what resources are needed?I'm pretty sure that if the sun and land aren't there any more, we won't have much to worry about, so those are a given. ;) What resource used in concentrated solar plants do you feel will be constrained in the future?I was rather hoping the authors would answer those questions but resources for the solar plants (not just concentrating solar) and the infrastructure was not addressed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he reverse assumption is explicit in the article. Perhaps you didn't read it? Their projections for 2050 and 2100 show that they think economic growth will continue for at least that long, yet never validate that assumption.At least for that long is not indefinitely, so I don't see where you're getting that assumption from in that article.I'm getting it from the fact that they expect energy use to continue growing for as far ahead as they care to look. Why would they assume energy growth, without economic growth?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he problems we have are because this obvious fact (that economic growth is unsustainable) is completely ignored by almost everyone, including the authors of the grand plan article.That's a pretty big statement, do you have any proof of this? Keep in mind, stating that energy consumption will grow a certain amount by some time in the future is not stating the economic growth is sustainable.True, but it is a clear assumption of the paper. If it was not assumed, they would have to try to figure out how long it could continue to see how much energy would be required over the time-scales they envisage. But they simply assumed that energy growth would continue at 1% for the periods looked at. Are you trying to persuade us that the authors indeed realise that economic growth is unsustainable, but choose to ignore the issue in figuring out a grand plan to power business as usual for the next 92 years?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t also depends on how we define economic growth, so that would be great too.An increase in economic activity, over inflation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') think it's a viable solution, just like I think electric velomobiles are viable for most personal transportation, but because of constraints on profitability I don't think those ideas could get past our ruling bodies.Well, I'll have to disagree. The article doesn't show that it's viable and doesn't encourage me to investigate it further. Until solution engineers show that they have considered the consequences of the solution and that business as usual is not sustainable, the solution is very unlikely to be a solution.

I should add that I like the idea of replacing unsustainable energy with potentially sustainable energy but we need to look at the consequences more closely and at the scale that is sustainable (even renewable energy can be unsustainable).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 07:39:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') showed they had illustrated one that pstarr had brought up in the article.
OK, one consequence may be the use and destruction of land. But, whilst they addressed it to some degree, that degree was minimal, presumably assuming that it was good enough to point out that the land use looks less destructive that the land use for coal fired generation. There's not hint that they have done an exhaustive examination of the land use issue, however. So you found one small area of consequences that they looked at. I got the impression that you thought they'd addressed a lot more.
Oh naw. Remember my initial response was just that your statement that the consequences weren't considered wasn't correct.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat the consequences might be, of the grand solar plan, are simply not considered because

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') think Monte's concern was much broader based. Sunlight is not just energy, but a particular form of energy, which the article proposes to turn into heat (since that is what it'll end up as. What benefits to the eco-system are removed by our acquisition. Ultimately, this will add more heat, not remove it.
Well, how much extra heat will we add, compared of course to the current alternative of adding extra heat through Carbon emissions from fossil fuels? According to the article, we could at most add two-three times more heat energy than we generate as power. That's still far below what we're adding thanks to Carbon emissions, and definitely a step in the right direction. Since these would be in the desert, use less land overall than coal, and impact what little vegetation and animal life there is in a far less destructive manner, I imagine they would be an improvement in that arena as well.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article certainly didn't show that any effort at all had gone into looking at what the consequences might be.This is why I asked if you read the article. They stated concerns about land use, and illustrated that if including the land used for mining, fossil fuels have greater and more destructive land use requirements. That is a case where the article was looking at what a consequence might be. I think that constitutes effort.Well, they clearly put effort into publicizing a plan that they think has merit. Clearly, they needed to determine where to put this solar plant, so no extra effort there. Illustrating that the use of land was potentially less destructive than coal mining (which it probably wouldn't replace until the end of the century) hardly constitutes effort at looking at all the consequences of the plan.What consequences are those? Heat retention, if plausible, is minimal. They are less destructive than current generation methods and located in a relatively desolate area of the world. What could pop up that you feel would be a problem?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') was rather hoping the authors would answer those questions but resources for the solar plants (not just concentrating solar) and the infrastructure was not addressed.I'll dig around a bit, but AFAIK, the resources needed are some sort of piping to contain the heated medium, and the collector/reflector devices to concentrate the solar energy and heat that medium. Everything else is the same as any other steam turbine->electricity setup. They propose HVDC connections, but I wonder if they are really needed given the cost, at least compared to the additional capacity needed if AC is used like it is now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he reverse assumption is explicit in the article. Perhaps you didn't read it? Their projections for 2050 and 2100 show that they think economic growth will continue for at least that long, yet never validate that assumption.At least for that long is not indefinitely, so I don't see where you're getting that assumption from in that article.I'm getting it from the fact that they expect energy use to continue growing for as far ahead as they care to look. Why would they assume energy growth, without economic growth?But that's not what you original stated in this quote cluster(?). You stated they they never implied economic growth couldn't continue indefinitely, but they never contended that it could. In fact I bet they consider it to be a common assumption since we're on a finite world.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article assumes that energy consumption growth continues (which is right) but it never even questions that economic growth cannot possibly continue indefinitely (implicitly assuming that there are no vital resource shortages for society).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he problems we have are because this obvious fact (that economic growth is unsustainable) is completely ignored by almost everyone, including the authors of the grand plan article.That's a pretty big statement, do you have any proof of this? Keep in mind, stating that energy consumption will grow a certain amount by some time in the future is not stating the economic growth is sustainable.True, but it is a clear assumption of the paper. If it was not assumed, they would have to try to figure out how long it could continue to see how much energy would be required over the time-scales they envisage.No they wouldn't. They may not care how energy will behave past the lifetime of anyone born today. I mean, I certainly am not planning more than a hundred years in the future, but that doesn't mean I believe economic growth is sustainable. The only thing that speculating up to a certain point in time means is that they believe that energy/economic growth is possible up to that point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')re you trying to persuade us that the authors indeed realise that economic growth is unsustainable, but choose to ignore the issue in figuring out a grand plan to power business as usual for the next 92 years?No. I'm trying to tell you that assuming growth over some finite interval is not the same as thinking that economic growth is sustainable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t also depends on how we define economic growth, so that would be great too.An increase in economic activity, over inflation.What is economic activity defined by?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') think it's a viable solution, just like I think electric velomobiles are viable for most personal transportation, but because of constraints on profitability I don't think those ideas could get past our ruling bodies.Well, I'll have to disagree. The article doesn't show that it's viable and doesn't encourage me to investigate it further. Until solution engineers show that they have considered the consequences of the solution and that business as usual is not sustainable, the solution is very unlikely to be a solution.What makes you think it isn't viable? All this concerns is power generation, not business as usual, so to speak, so I don't see how stating we can't continue with other activities shows that we can't do this. If you have proof that this is not possible, please bring it to the table.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') should add that I like the idea of replacing unsustainable energy with potentially sustainable energy but we need to look at the consequences more closely and at the scale that is sustainable (even renewable energy can be unsustainable).I agree, and based on everything I've read this seems sustainable. If you have access to information showing it isn't, please bring it to the table. :)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 12:19:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ') Interesting. What makes you say that Dr. Bartlett agrees? Do you have a citation?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Barlett', 'T')he lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Now, we can debate whether we like zero population growth or don't like it, it’s going to happen. Whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People could never live at that density on the dry land surface of the earth. Therefore, today’s high birth rates will drop; today’s low death rates will rise till they have exactly the same numerical value. That will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years. So maybe you're wondering then, what options are available if we wanted to address the problem.

In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing, make the problem worse. Just look at the list. Everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood. There's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me, if it’s my death they’re lowering. But then I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse.

There’s peace, law and order; scientific agriculture has lowered the death rate due to famine—that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives—that just makes the population problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.

Now, in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now, smoking clearly raises the death rate; well, that helps solve the problem.

Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)

We now have the capability of incredible war; would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents? Well, here we can see the human dilemma—everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem. There is a dilemma if ever there was one.


http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 12:34:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')I checked out the impacts in that paper.


No, you cherry-picked some quotes out of context to ridicule the points made. You ignored the main thrust of the paper.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, direct solar energy radiation is responsible for the heating of land masses and oceans, the evaporation of water, and therefore the functioning of the entire climatic system. Wind
transports heat, water, dust, pollen, and seeds. Rivers are
responsible for oxygenation, transport of nutrients and
organisms, erosion, and sedimentation. The capture of
solar energy via photosynthesis results in biomass that
provides the primary energy source for all living matter
and therefore plays a vital role in the maintenance of
ecosystems (Clarke 1994).
According 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).

(here's your cherry-pick in bold, JD) The simple intraventions. The most difficult to assess. Who is grasping at straws, here? I think it's you.

Finally, some of the most difficult problems to assess
are potential eco-system impacts. These may range from
simple interventions such as the removal of shade trees to
bird and insect kills in windmills.

Since photosynthetically fixed energy (i.e., biomass) supports the great diversity of species inhabiting ecosystems (Vitousek et al. 1986, Wright 1990), it follows that removal of this energy source
will result in the endangerment and extinction of species.
For example, it has been determined that a reduction of energy flow through an ecosystem will result in a concomitant
loss of species as shown in the species-energy
curve in Fig. 4. Thus the greater the diversion of solar
energy for human purposes (DE), the greater the loss of
species diversity (DSP) (Wright 1990).


I invite everyone to read the entire paper.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 12:41:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')ince these would be in the desert, use less land overall than coal, and impact what little vegetation and animal life there is in a far less destructive manner, I imagine they would be an improvement in that arena as well.


I suggest a course in ecology. Focus on the desert. Deserts are full of life and no less of a precious ecosystem than a pine forest.

This type of mindset is at the root of much enviromental degradation.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 12:48:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')s opposed to letting nature do it, yes? Dr. Bartlett agrees; we need to act first.

Mankind's population control has always been, and always will be disease. Letting nature back into the picture comes by design or by default.

Default is the worse choice.
Oh great, eugenics. As long as you "go first" it's alright by me. Lead by example Monte! :-D


Eugenics? Create a better world by improving the human gene pool?

Not. :roll:

Getting out of the way of nature is not eugenics. You would rather see nature's die-off correction than take responsibility for overshoot?

Nature will take no prisoners.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 13:18:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')I did. According to Pimental, from dieoff dot org, in the most extreme case we appropriate about 25%.


Total earth, land and ocean. 40% of land still. And it is from land that we will turn to biomass divertion.

That was in 1986 (21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.

My point?

From the same paper you cite:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e estimate that organic material equivalent to about 40% of the present net primary production in terrestrial ecosystems is being co-opted by human beings each year. People use this material directly or indirectly, it flows to different consumers and decomposers than it otherwise would, or it is lost because of human-caused changes in land use. People and associated organisms use this organic material largely, but not entirely, at human direction, and the vast majority of other species must subsist on the remainder. An equivalent concentration of resources into one species and its satellites has probably not occurred since land plants first diversified.

The co-option, diversion, and destruction of these terrestrial resources clearly contributes to human caused extinctions of species and genetically distinct populations extinctions that could cause a greater reduction in organic diversity than occurred at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago. This decimation of biotic resources will foreclose numerous options for humanity because of the loss of potentially useful species and the genetic impoverishment of others that may survive (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981, Ehrlich and Mooney 1983).

The information presented here cannot be used directly to calculate Earth's long­term carrying capacity for human beings because, among other things, carrying capacity depends on both the affluence of the population being supported and the technologies supporting it (Ehrlich et al. 1977). But our results do indicate that with current patterns of exploitation, distribution, and consumption, a substantially larger human population--half again its present size or more--could not be supported without co-opting well over half of terrestrial NPP. Demographic projections based on today's human population structures and growth rates point to at least that large an increase within a few decades (Demeny 1984, Frejka 1981) and a considerable expansion beyond that. Observers who believe that limits to growth are so distant as to be of no consequence for today's decision makers (Simon and Kahn 1984) appear unaware of these biological realities.


So, today that 40% would easily be 50% as we went from 4 billion to 6.7 billion.

40% of total NPP is a conservative estimate I'd hazard. Not to mention the 3 billion more soon to come.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron