General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by TonyPrep » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 17:13:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'R')emember my initial response was just that your statement that the consequences weren't considered wasn't correct.
Wow, picky in the extreme. We've managed to find one small part of the article that maybe could be interpreted as examining a consequence. Technically, you're correct, but, the article shows no consideration of consequences other than this slight hat tilting towards one consequence.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hat's still far below what we're adding thanks to Carbon emissions, and definitely a step in the right direction.
If the step is inconsequential, it doesn't really matter. By 2050, climate could already have tipped into chaos and population could be in die off. Of course, the authors don't consider these issues because we seek solutions in isolation and, therefore, find no solution.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat consequences are those?
We go round and round. The authors haven't thought about consequences at all (aside from the one mentioned above, in a small way). I'm not the author of the report but Monte's concerns should have given you a hint of the broad considerations that they should have examined.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '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.
Well, the authors think it is necessary. Remember that they are proposing not just additions to electricity generation but wholesale replacement, whilst the plant being replaced still exists. So these are new resources that will be needed to design build and maintain the plant and infrastructure. Remember, also, that they don't assume concentrating solar - the opening paragraphs say "A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest." The article doesn't examine the resource issue (other than land).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut 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.
Really? I'll bet they never considered it at all. It's an implicit assumption by them and that assumption is something else that was not examined in the article. I'd have considered the proposal more complete if they had first examined what energy level would need to be met, taking everything into consideration. Limits to Growth gave several scenarios, they could have taken those as a starting point to estimate the likely energy demand for a resource constrained world that might be implementing policies to tackle climate change and other problems. Then, perhaps as part of those policies, they might have come up with a different proposal, and one that tried to examine potential consequences.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') mean, I certainly am not planning more than a hundred years in the future
Of course you're not but those proposing national energy plans should plan more than a hundred years ahead, especially in light of the problems we now face as a direct result of not doing that planning.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$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?Money changing hands in the production and use of products and services.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')ll 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. 
The way they propose it is unsustainable. They assume energy growth of 1% per year, which is unsustainable. Implicit in energy growth is economic growth, which is unsustainable. Its other impacts on resources and the environment are not even examined, so there is no way to know if those aspects are sustainable. The proposal can't be defended by saying that they only examined power generation since we need to look at these long term aspects as part of a whole, not in isolation. If the US starts expending resources on this, with the assumptions of economic growth and no adverse consequences, it could just add to the problems, if those assumptions turn out to be false (which at least one of them will).
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by bobcousins » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 18:10:39
If these are the best objections to solar power generation, then I am not concerned at all!
However, if you want to tie up planning inquiries for decades until full studies of the impact on the local population of crane fly have been performed, it seems a good way to go.
It's all downhill from here
-
bobcousins
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Left the cult
-
by bobcousins » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 18:16:24
$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.
Hmm, included in "land use" are golf courses and public parks. That's reaching a bit, isn't it?
It's all downhill from here
-
bobcousins
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Left the cult
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 19:41:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I')f these are the best objections to solar power generation, then I am not concerned at all!
However, if you want to tie up planning inquiries for decades until full studies of the impact on the local population of crane fly have been performed, it seems a good way to go.
Bob, I feel that you've understood nothing.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 22:00:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '')$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.
Hmm, included in "land use" are golf courses and public parks. That's reaching a bit, isn't it?
A monoculture is just that. It destroys biodiversity.
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 » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 00:11:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'G')etting out of the way of nature is not eugenics. You would rather see nature's die-off correction than take responsibility for overshoot?
Unless you have some way of letting nature come back into the picture by design that isn't forced on the World's population, selectively weeding out individuals who have certain genetic traits, in this case the resistance to whatever diseases, is eugenics. I suppose if you had stated$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')ankind'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 best choice.
I could see that you weren't advocating selection based on genetic traits, since we wouldn't design a situation where nature comes back into the picture, but since, by your own words, design is the best choice, then that's endorsing eugenics.
In any event, like I said before, lead by example. Design your life such that you let nature and disease back into it if you're so enthusiastic about the idea.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')otal earth, land and ocean.
Equivalent to 40% of land still.
Fixed it for ya.
Although, you could assume the equivalent of just North and South America for a much larger figure. That would really stand out, don'tcha think? Especially if you conveniently left off any background for it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd it is from land that we will turn to biomass divertion.
Just land?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat was in 1986 (21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e assumed a current human population of 5.0 billion people and an average caloric intake of 2500 kcal/person/day (FAO 1980). 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '4')0% of total NPP is a conservative estimate I'd hazard. Not to mention the 3 billion more soon to come.Not according to the paper. Comparing 6.6 billion to 5 billion is about 33% of total NPP.
In any event, massage the figures all you want. Imagine how much of the equivalent NPP we're using for whatever state/nation you're in! 
Last edited by
yesplease on Mon 25 Feb 2008, 00:20:15, 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 yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 00:16:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ow, picky in the extreme. We've managed to find one small part of the article that maybe could be interpreted as examining a consequence. Technically, you're correct, but, the article shows no consideration of consequences other than this slight hat tilting towards one consequence.
If you consider literal picky, then sure. If by stating they didn't consider any consequences, you meant they didn't consider what you're concerned about, although since you haven't gone into that a whole lot I'm not sure what it is precisely, then I guess what you said squares up. In any event, as per the consequences, what consequences are you talking about? We would cut GHG emissions, limit land use and species destruction, bring jobs to America, etc... What consequence do you have in mind that could present a problem?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hat's still far below what we're adding thanks to Carbon emissions, and definitely a step in the right direction.
If the step is inconsequential, it doesn't really matter. By 2050, climate could already have tipped into chaos and population could be in die off. Of course, the authors don't consider these issues because we seek solutions in isolation and, therefore, find no solution.
Considering that most of the proposed moneys are to work out the kinks and really determine whether this is feasible or not, I don't think we'll be putting ourselves at much risk in terms of a die-off. If we suddenly go berserk and start eating each other's brains, it really won't matter what we've done with a few hundred billion up to that point anyway.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat consequences are those?
We go round and round. The authors haven't thought about consequences at all (aside from the one mentioned above, in a small way). I'm not the author of the report but Monte's concerns should have given you a hint of the broad considerations that they should have examined.Monte's concern was baseless wrt current problems. Maybe if we all lived in harmony with the environment in our little hobbit homes and didn't even trample the grass as we walked, I could see worrying about energy flows as reasonable. But, since we trample everything we see, and are adding energy to the environment orders of magnitude faster than this ever could, I'm pretty sure concerns along those lines are considered laughable. As Monte would say, the scale just isn't there, when we're already screwing things up monumentally.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '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.Well, the authors think it is necessary. Remember that they are proposing not just additions to electricity generation but wholesale replacement, whilst the plant being replaced still exists. So these are new resources that will be needed to design build and maintain the plant and infrastructure. Remember, also, that they don't assume concentrating solar - the opening paragraphs say "A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest." The article doesn't examine the resource issue (other than land).What resource issue is the problem? From the article, look at the proposed mix of generation methods, research the raw materials needed in their construction, and show how resources may be a problem.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut 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.Really? I'll bet they never considered it at all. It's an implicit assumption by them and that assumption is something else that was not examined in the article.Not considering something does not make it an implicit assumption. 
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') mean, I certainly am not planning more than a hundred years in the futureOf course you're not but those proposing national energy plans should plan more than a hundred years ahead, especially in light of the problems we now face as a direct result of not doing that planning.So... Because they aren't planning far enough ahead, you aren't considering them? What alternatives do you know of that are so much better? Keeping in mind that if we don't do something like this we will continue to incur externalized costs from fossil fuel use while those who benefit from it rake in the cash. If you want to do nothing, feel free.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$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?Money changing hands in the production and use of products and services.What are money, production, use, products, and services?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he way they propose it is unsustainable. They assume energy growth of 1% per year, which is unsustainable. Implicit in energy growth is economic growth, which is unsustainable.How so? Show that 1% per year growth up to whatever time/capacity assumptions they made is unsustainable. Keeping in mind they never stated it would be perpetual growth, just growth at some rate up to some point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')ts other impacts on resources and the environment are not even examined, so there is no way to know if those aspects are sustainable.Show they aren't. Debunk this if you think there's some unforeseen problem they haven't addressed.
$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 TonyPrep » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 01:03:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f you consider literal picky, then sure. If by stating they didn't consider any consequences, you meant they didn't consider what you're concerned about, although since you haven't gone into that a whole lot I'm not sure what it is precisely
Neither am I, and that is the whole point. I have not done extensive study on the Solar Grand Plan but I hoped the authors of the plan would have. What are the consequences of diverting x% of sunlight for our own uses? I don't know but I'd sure like to know the answer. What are the consequences of diverting or acquiring resources to building up this grand plan so that eventually the present incumbents can be phased out? What are the consequences of growing this infrastructure exponentially, intending to displace existing plant, for the next 92 years, and beyond? Are the resources actually available? Is it reasonable to expect 10% of the then energy demand to come from biofuels, and how did they calculate that it is even possible? There are probably many other concerns that might be raised but the article addresses none of them and shows no hint that consequences were even examined (aside from the unsubstantiated claim that it wouldn't be as destructive as coal mining). If you want to believe that the authors must have considered more but chose not to include it in a 6 page Sci Am article, fair enough, but I'm not convinced.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut, since we trample everything we see, and are adding energy to the environment orders of magnitude faster than this ever could, I'm pretty sure concerns along those lines are considered laughable.
No, you're not pretty sure, you just prefer to laugh at small numbers. You may
believe that there is no problem with diverting a small,but increasing, amount of sunlight for our energy "needs", but you don't know because you've never done the research. The authors of the grand plan also haven't done the research or even considered it. I don't mind your not doing it but I mind those pushing a particular plan as a solution not doing it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat resource issue is the problem? From the article, look at the proposed mix of generation methods, research the raw materials needed in their construction, and show how resources may be a problem.
So you're saying that I should do the work that these authors should have done and, if I don't, that proves that the necessary resources will be available for the next century? I think the authors of the plan should have done that, but you seem to think that they only need to be superficial with the practical detail, having worked out the theory.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')ot considering something does not make it an implicit assumption.
OK, how about there is no hint that the thought ever crossed their minds. You say it's obvious but, if it's obvious then why even try to find a plan that takes a hundred years to run and has no end planned after that? Of course it's an implicit assumption.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat alternatives do you know of that are so much better?Live sustainably.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$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?Money changing hands in the production and use of products and services.What are money, production, use, products, and services?What on earth are you trying to get at with these nonsensical questions? Are you trying to show something about economic growth? What do you think economic activity is and how would you define economic growth?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')how they aren't. Debunk this if you think there's some unforeseen problem they haven't addressed.I'm sorry, I don't have the time or resources to do the authors' work for them. You appear to have swallowed their plan unquestioningly. I don't say it's a bad plan per-se but I have no way of knowing from the article, since so many aspects are not covered and big implicit assumptions have been made (because the plan, as described, would be meaningless without those assumptions).
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by MonteQuest » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 01:32:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')I could see that you weren't advocating selection based on genetic traits, since we wouldn't design a situation where nature comes back into the picture, but since, by your own words, design is the best choice, then that's endorsing eugenics.
I see you haven't a clue about what I am talking about.
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 » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 02:38:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') have not done extensive study on the Solar Grand Plan but I hoped the authors of the plan would have. What are the consequences of diverting x% of sunlight for our own uses? I don't know but I'd sure like to know the answer.
Minimal, compared to the consequences of currently diverting thousands of times more energy from sunlight, what we're doing now with Carbon emissions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')here are probably many other concerns that might be raised but the article addresses none of them and shows no hint that consequences were even examined (aside from the unsubstantiated claim that it wouldn't be as destructive as coal mining). If you want to believe that the authors must have considered more but chose not to include it in a 6 page Sci Am article, fair enough, but I'm not convinced.
There is a difference between disbelief and neutrality. I'm not stating that there won't be consequences, I'm stating that if you think there are, bring them to the table. Otherwise, it just sounds like fear mongering. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just saying that if you have concerns and expect them to be taken seriously, provide some proof.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut, since we trample everything we see, and are adding energy to the environment orders of magnitude faster than this ever could, I'm pretty sure concerns along those lines are considered laughable.
No, you're not pretty sure, you just prefer to laugh at small numbers.
No, I'm pretty sure that compared to current production methods and the associated externalities, the risk of sunlight diversion you mentioned is minimal. I'm not laughing at the numbers, I'm laughing at the notion that they are dangerous compared to what we're currently capturing in the atmosphere thanks to Carbon emissions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he authors of the grand plan also haven't done the research or even considered it. I don't mind your not doing it but I mind those pushing a particular plan as a solution not doing it.How do you know they've never done or considered research on it? Do you realize how far reaching that statement is? Stating you know the authors have never considered research on it is especially... far reaching. To say the least.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat resource issue is the problem? From the article, look at the proposed mix of generation methods, research the raw materials needed in their construction, and show how resources may be a problem.So you're saying that I should do the work that these authors should have done and, if I don't, that proves that the necessary resources will be available for the next century?No, I'm saying that if you have valid concerns about potential problems you should probably research them if you want more information. For your own curiosity. That being said, since you apparently know what the authors haven't considered, why not call them out on it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') think the authors of the plan should have done that, but you seem to think that they only need to be superficial with the practical detail, having worked out the theory.And, they may, or may not have.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'N')ot considering something does not make it an implicit assumption. OK, how about there is no hint that the thought ever crossed their minds. Why should there even be a hint that it crossed their minds? There are many things that I take as implicit assumptions that also don't consistently cross my mind. What you're stating isn't logical.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou say it's obvious but, if it's obvious then why even try to find a plan that takes a hundred years to run and has no end planned after that? Of course it's an implicit assumption.This goes back to what I stated before. Just because an end, ala steady state, for something hasn't been considered, doesn't mean it assumes indefinite growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat alternatives do you know of that are so much better?Live sustainably.How?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat on earth are you trying to get at with these nonsensical questions? Are you trying to show something about economic growth? What do you think economic activity is and how would you define economic growth?I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your statements. What I think they are is immaterial because I'm asking you what you mean by them. If you don't feel like defining them in any useful way, that's fine.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')how they aren't. Debunk this if you think there's some unforeseen problem they haven't addressed.I'm sorry, I don't have the time or resources to do the authors' work for them.But somehow... I'm not sure how exactly, you know what they haven't considered? C'mon... I'm not asking you to do their work. I'm asking you to show that the concerns you have about the proposed project, are valid. All I've gotten from you is statements about how you know they haven't considered or researched potential impacts, just like you haven't. Just because you haven't doesn't mean they haven't.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou appear to have swallowed their plan unquestioningly.Based on what? Asking you to provide evidence for your concerns is not swallowing their plan unquestioningly. For all I know, the resources required could be impossible to gather, but, they could also be doable. I'm saying, that if you think there will be problems, tell me why and link some supporting evidence. All I can say is that their plan has far more supporting evidence than your objections to it. Bring more evidence as to why your concerns are valid and we can start researching those in order to figure out where everything stands. That being said, this is not an admission that I take everything about the plan at face value, just that based on what they've stated, and what we've with solar thermal currently, what they've stated doesn't seem unrealistic on the surface.
All I'm asking is to provide as much evidence as they have.
$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 yesplease » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 02:38:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') see you haven't a clue about what I am talking about.
I see you haven't a clue about what you are talking about.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat was in 1986 (
21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e assumed a current human population of
5.0 billion people and an average caloric intake of 2500 kcal/person/day (FAO 1980).
$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 » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 02:11:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') see you haven't a clue about what I am talking about.
I see you haven't a clue about what you are talking about.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat was in 1986 (
21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e assumed a current human population of
5.0 billion people and an average caloric intake of 2500 kcal/person/day (FAO 1980).
Oh?
You maintain that human appropriation of NPP has not increased since 1986 when it was 40%? So what if my 4 billion guess at population then was off by a billion. So what?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut 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.
I'd say 50% of terrestial NPP today is a conservative estimate.
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 » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 02:20:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') see you haven't a clue about what I am talking about.
I see you haven't a clue about what you are talking about.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat was in 1986 (
21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e assumed a current human population of
5.0 billion people and an average caloric intake of 2500 kcal/person/day (FAO 1980).
Oh?
You maintain that human appropriation of NPP has not increased since 1986 when it was 40%?No. Just that you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. If you haven't a clue about what you are talking about, how can you reasonably expect others to?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')'d say 50% of terrestial NPP today is a conservative estimate.You also said...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat was in 1986 (21 years ago) with the population at 4 billion.When in fact...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e assumed a current human population of 5.0 billion people and an average caloric intake of 2500 kcal/person/day (FAO 1980).So I tend not to put a lot of faith into what you say given your track record.
$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 » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 02:27:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')o I tend not to put a lot of faith into what you say given your track record.
My track record on this site is that I do my homework and always cite links to support my views.
As I said, So what if my 4 billion guess at population then was off by a billion. So what?
Doesn't change the fact that human appropriation of NPP has increased since 1986.
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 » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 03:14:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')o I tend not to put a lot of faith into what you say given your track record.
My track record on this site is that I do my homework and always cite links to support my views.
Your track record on this site is that you do your homework, just not correctly in some cases, and in terms of citing links to support your views, I think always is pretty strong. It seems more like you cite your sources sometimes, so if by always you mean sometimes, sure!$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$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.
$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 TonyPrep » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 03:49:40
I think Monte should have acknowledged his mistake but, equally, he makes a good point about the figure being fairly trivial. If you don't think the percentage appropriation of terrestrial NPP is significantly more than 40% by now, then say so, otherwise it is a fairly trivial point in the overall thrust of Monte's argument.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by yesplease » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 03:57:45
See, that's the odd thing... I'm not sure why they continue to go on other topics since I'm only pointing out where they were in error, not disputing anything else. They seem as confused about what I'm posting as they are about the paper by Peter Vitousek, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich and Pamela Matson.
$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 kublikhan » Wed 27 Feb 2008, 19:46:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') have not done extensive study on the Solar Grand Plan but I hoped the authors of the plan would have. What are the consequences of diverting x% of sunlight for our own uses? I don't know but I'd sure like to know the answer. What are the consequences of diverting or acquiring resources to building up this grand plan so that eventually the present incumbents can be phased out? What are the consequences of growing this infrastructure exponentially, intending to displace existing plant, for the next 92 years, and beyond? Are the resources actually available? Is it reasonable to expect 10% of the then energy demand to come from biofuels, and how did they calculate that it is even possible? There are probably many other concerns that might be raised but the article addresses none of them and shows no hint that consequences were even examined (aside from the unsubstantiated claim that it wouldn't be as destructive as coal mining). If you want to believe that the authors must have considered more but chose not to include it in a 6 page Sci Am article, fair enough, but I'm not convinced.
You are doing it again Tony. Every time someone posts something you say something to the effect of: "I have reservations about: X. I think it could have some problems. But I will not backup my concerns with facts and research because I am too lazy to look it up. But I am convinced these problems are out there. Please look them up for me so I can debunk X easier." If you want to ridicule an idea, you should at least have the decency to backup your concerns and not ask other people to debunk themselves.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$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 (Abbasiet al. 1995, Trainer 1995a).
Limits-to-Sustainability Read the paper, I am still not seeing the environmental disaster you envision from large scale renewable energy generation. The quote above even states the environmental damage is likely to be less than fossil fuels. IMO, this paper does a poor job of supporting your view of widespread environmental damage from large scale renewable energy generation. I am guessing that you foresee worse effects than the paper describes? On equal scales, do you foresee renewable energy as causing more damage to the environment than fossil fuels? Also, about this quote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.
This would seem to suggest that supplying all of our electrical needs via renewables is several orders of magnitude less disruptive to the environment than carbon emissions. That being the case, your time would be better spent lobbying for carbon emission reductions instead of arguing against large scale deployment of renewable energy.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by MonteQuest » Thu 28 Feb 2008, 02:37:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') think Monte should have acknowledged his mistake but, equally, he makes a good point about the figure being fairly trivial. If you don't think the percentage appropriation of terrestrial NPP is significantly more than 40% by now, then say so, otherwise it is a fairly trivial point in the overall thrust of Monte's argument.
What? My estimate of the population error? Big deal.
The 40% terrestrial versus 25% total NPP?
I still maintain the total NPP is 40% and that the terrestrial is 50% plus.
He was refuting me with one link that was
21 years old. There are other sources I have linked to that say 40% total NPP today.
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 0 guests
