.
This discussion is pointless ,
it is impossible to make solar panel with only solar panel power
I include the manufacturing of the components , chemicals or materials needed
PeakOil is You
The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational collaps
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by sparky » Wed 21 Aug 2013, 02:44:34
-
sparky - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Sydney , OZ
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by careinke » Wed 21 Aug 2013, 06:06:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
This discussion is pointless ,
it is impossible to make solar panel with only solar panel power
I include the manufacturing of the components , chemicals or materials needed
This discussion is pointless ,
it is impossible to make solar panel with only solar panel power
I include the manufacturing of the components , chemicals or materials needed
I would not say impossible. Improbable, yes, but not impossible.
This is an interesting thread, but there is a lot of conventional thinking here. A lot of it is incorrect.
1. Some of you folks have a few misconceptions about population. Population growth always expands under difficult circumstances. Populations under famine have one of the highest birth rates. Populations under wartime conditions have the highest birth rates. Populations with the highest standard of living, have declining populations. Therefore, the solution to overpopulation is abundance. No way are rising oil costs going to lower population levels.
The cleanest, easiest to produce, highly renewable energy source in my opinion, (and others), are sticks. Coppicing a Maple in my area, (and there are equivalents in all other climates), is stupidly simple. You cut the tree down and wait for the shoots to get big enough, about two years for a Maple, then you harvest nice two inch wide sticks that fit perfectly in a J style rocket stove.
With recent refinements, rocket stoves are highly efficient cook stoves and heaters. Probably one of the best things being introduced into the third world today. They require about 1/5 the wood and don't produce smoke. I built, and use one in my green house. It has significantly increased the productivity of the green house.
Geoff Lawton claims a family of four can produce all of it's housing, energy, water, food, and produce no waste on just 1/4 of an acre. He claims once established, the system will run on only ten hours of work per week. Right now, suburban areas have a huge advantage in setting up these systems. Wood chips are basically free for the asking, along with lots of other resources that can be pulled from waste streams. Once fully established, you produce your own biomass, leaving the waste streams for others to exploit.
I am currently designing my sisters place in a suburban area in the Puyallup Valley. Their lot is 100' X 140', just about a third of an acre. Their goal is to produce most of their food with enough surplus to either sell or trade for the stuff they cannot grow. In addition they want to cut expenses low enough so only one person has to have an outside job, (for health insurance reasons and to pay taxes). I have to say, you can do a lot with 1/3 of an acre.
They will have (or have now) chickens, bees, rabbits, a very nice green house, ponds, lots of trees and perennials, water catchment (for the plants and animals), grey water systems, animal fodder, worm compost system, a backyard solar powered well, and extremely easy to maintain annual beds. I see no problem in exceeding their initial goals.
Granted they are going to have to eat differently, and in season for the most part. On the other hand, the stuff they will eat will be a much higher quality than the food like stuff sold in the grocery store.
Aquaponics is another system that is extremely productive in a very small space. A system as small as five 42 gallon plastic barrels can produce hundreds of pounds of fish and hundreds of pounds of highly nutritious vegetables using 1/10 of the water required in conventional systems.
At our place, we frequently replace "1,000 mile salads", with "100 yard" meals, and our meals are not dripping in petroleum. Every year: our yields increase, the required workload decreases, our soils improve, and the wildlife increases. Every year more and more of my friends/relatives start a food garden, become hooked, and inspire others to do the same.
There are some very intelligent "eco geeks" working outside the mainstream, developing some amazing sustainable systems. Earth ships, tiny houses, land redemption, food forests, soils, microbiology, auquaponics, solar in all its shapes, and more, are all being advanced quickly as more, and more, people experiment and post results on You Tube and other social media.
My current favorite is Permaculture. Permaculture takes various reductionist science fields and combines them into interacting and mutually self supporting complex/holistic systems. I thought I knew a lot about permaculture before taking my Permaculture Design Certification course. I did not. I knew a lot of the tools, and techniques, but I really did not know how to tie everything together.
I also like Permacultures Prime directive, and three ethics.
Permaculture Prime Directive: "The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children."
Ethics:
1. Care of the Earth
2. Care of People
3. Return the surplus (to the first two ethics)
Not a bad set of morals to live by. It's been said permaculture is a revolution disguised as gardening. It's also been said that, growing a garden is the most revolutionary thing you can do........and you get strawberries.
Hopefully, there will be enough of us to help soften the inevitable coming transition. The knowledge is there, it can be done without directly competing against the current BAU situation, and in the end, the only truly sustainable system.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
-
careinke - Volunteer
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by Newfie » Wed 21 Aug 2013, 07:42:09
The four horsemen will deal with population.
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by Newfie » Wed 21 Aug 2013, 11:45:45
FWIW, I was not being sarcastic, that is my considered opinion.
A few others seem to agree. Here is a small sample.
Sir David Attenborough – naturalist b1926
“The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.”
Jacques Cousteau – conservationist 1910 – 1997
“We must alert and organise the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises — exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”
Helen Keller – author, activist and lecturer 1880 – 1968
“Once it was necessary that the people should multiply and be fruitful if the race was to survive. But now to preserve the race it is necessary that people hold back the power of propagation.”
John Maynard Keynes – economist 1883 – 1946
“If only Malthus, instead of Ricardo, had been the parent stem from which nineteenth-century economics proceeded, what a much wiser and richer place the world would be today!”
John Maynard Keynes – economist 1883 – 1946
“If only Malthus, instead of Ricardo, had been the parent stem from which nineteenth-century economics proceeded, what a much wiser and richer place the world would be today!”
Isaac Asimov – author 1920 – 1992
“…democracy can not survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.”
“Which is the greater danger — nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to do something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values-there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally — and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing.”
George H.W. Bush – US President b1924
“Success in the population field, under United Nations leadership, may…determine whether we can resolve successfully the other great questions of peace, prosperity, and individual rights that face the world.”
Michael Palin – comedian b1943
“The greatest politically charged challenge facing our planet? Unchecked population growth.”
A few others seem to agree. Here is a small sample.
Sir David Attenborough – naturalist b1926
“The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.”
Jacques Cousteau – conservationist 1910 – 1997
“We must alert and organise the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises — exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”
Helen Keller – author, activist and lecturer 1880 – 1968
“Once it was necessary that the people should multiply and be fruitful if the race was to survive. But now to preserve the race it is necessary that people hold back the power of propagation.”
John Maynard Keynes – economist 1883 – 1946
“If only Malthus, instead of Ricardo, had been the parent stem from which nineteenth-century economics proceeded, what a much wiser and richer place the world would be today!”
John Maynard Keynes – economist 1883 – 1946
“If only Malthus, instead of Ricardo, had been the parent stem from which nineteenth-century economics proceeded, what a much wiser and richer place the world would be today!”
Isaac Asimov – author 1920 – 1992
“…democracy can not survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.”
“Which is the greater danger — nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to do something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values-there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally — and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing.”
George H.W. Bush – US President b1924
“Success in the population field, under United Nations leadership, may…determine whether we can resolve successfully the other great questions of peace, prosperity, and individual rights that face the world.”
Michael Palin – comedian b1943
“The greatest politically charged challenge facing our planet? Unchecked population growth.”
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by sparky » Wed 21 Aug 2013, 18:47:23
.
And the blind prejudice of the environment movement , always rattling bones when the subject is raised
it fit with their deeply held anti science outlook
And the blind prejudice of the environment movement , always rattling bones when the subject is raised
it fit with their deeply held anti science outlook
-
sparky - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Sydney , OZ
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by mustang1919 » Thu 22 Aug 2013, 09:30:20
The real nail in the coffin for any solution based on nonrenewables is exponential growth in consumption. At 5% growth rates there isn't really anything that can sustain that kind of depletion for more than a few centuries. Unless people decide to wake up and budget things even nuclear will run out pretty fast.
- mustang1919
- Wood
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012, 22:38:16
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by rollin » Thu 22 Aug 2013, 11:03:47
I see that a major concern is that a large number of people will need to be involved in the construct of the new energy systems.
Just would like to inject some historical numbers. At one time over 50% of the population was needed to raise food and support agriculture. When the railroads were in their heyday, about 25% of the work force was either working for or involved with support of the railroad (that is just transportation of goods and people).
So I see no problem with 20 to 30% of the work force being involved in the rebuild of the energy sector.
Just would like to inject some historical numbers. At one time over 50% of the population was needed to raise food and support agriculture. When the railroads were in their heyday, about 25% of the work force was either working for or involved with support of the railroad (that is just transportation of goods and people).
So I see no problem with 20 to 30% of the work force being involved in the rebuild of the energy sector.
Once in a while the peasants do win. Of course then they just go and find new rulers, you think they would learn.
- rollin
- Lignite
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Thu 06 Dec 2012, 18:28:24
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by Quinny » Fri 23 Aug 2013, 02:26:31
+1
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
This discussion is pointless ,
it is impossible to make solar panel with only solar panel power
I include the manufacturing of the components , chemicals or materials needed
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
This discussion is pointless ,
it is impossible to make solar panel with only solar panel power
I include the manufacturing of the components , chemicals or materials needed
I would not say impossible. Improbable, yes, but not impossible.
This is an interesting thread, but there is a lot of conventional thinking here. A lot of it is incorrect.
1. Some of you folks have a few misconceptions about population. Population growth always expands under difficult circumstances. Populations under famine have one of the highest birth rates. Populations under wartime conditions have the highest birth rates. Populations with the highest standard of living, have declining populations. Therefore, the solution to overpopulation is abundance. No way are rising oil costs going to lower population levels.
The cleanest, easiest to produce, highly renewable energy source in my opinion, (and others), are sticks. Coppicing a Maple in my area, (and there are equivalents in all other climates), is stupidly simple. You cut the tree down and wait for the shoots to get big enough, about two years for a Maple, then you harvest nice two inch wide sticks that fit perfectly in a J style rocket stove.
With recent refinements, rocket stoves are highly efficient cook stoves and heaters. Probably one of the best things being introduced into the third world today. They require about 1/5 the wood and don't produce smoke. I built, and use one in my green house. It has significantly increased the productivity of the green house.
Geoff Lawton claims a family of four can produce all of it's housing, energy, water, food, and produce no waste on just 1/4 of an acre. He claims once established, the system will run on only ten hours of work per week. Right now, suburban areas have a huge advantage in setting up these systems. Wood chips are basically free for the asking, along with lots of other resources that can be pulled from waste streams. Once fully established, you produce your own biomass, leaving the waste streams for others to exploit.
I am currently designing my sisters place in a suburban area in the Puyallup Valley. Their lot is 100' X 140', just about a third of an acre. Their goal is to produce most of their food with enough surplus to either sell or trade for the stuff they cannot grow. In addition they want to cut expenses low enough so only one person has to have an outside job, (for health insurance reasons and to pay taxes). I have to say, you can do a lot with 1/3 of an acre.
They will have (or have now) chickens, bees, rabbits, a very nice green house, ponds, lots of trees and perennials, water catchment (for the plants and animals), grey water systems, animal fodder, worm compost system, a backyard solar powered well, and extremely easy to maintain annual beds. I see no problem in exceeding their initial goals.
Granted they are going to have to eat differently, and in season for the most part. On the other hand, the stuff they will eat will be a much higher quality than the food like stuff sold in the grocery store.
Aquaponics is another system that is extremely productive in a very small space. A system as small as five 42 gallon plastic barrels can produce hundreds of pounds of fish and hundreds of pounds of highly nutritious vegetables using 1/10 of the water required in conventional systems.
At our place, we frequently replace "1,000 mile salads", with "100 yard" meals, and our meals are not dripping in petroleum. Every year: our yields increase, the required workload decreases, our soils improve, and the wildlife increases. Every year more and more of my friends/relatives start a food garden, become hooked, and inspire others to do the same.
There are some very intelligent "eco geeks" working outside the mainstream, developing some amazing sustainable systems. Earth ships, tiny houses, land redemption, food forests, soils, microbiology, auquaponics, solar in all its shapes, and more, are all being advanced quickly as more, and more, people experiment and post results on You Tube and other social media.
My current favorite is Permaculture. Permaculture takes various reductionist science fields and combines them into interacting and mutually self supporting complex/holistic systems. I thought I knew a lot about permaculture before taking my Permaculture Design Certification course. I did not. I knew a lot of the tools, and techniques, but I really did not know how to tie everything together.
I also like Permacultures Prime directive, and three ethics.
Permaculture Prime Directive: "The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children."
Ethics:
1. Care of the Earth
2. Care of People
3. Return the surplus (to the first two ethics)
Not a bad set of morals to live by. It's been said permaculture is a revolution disguised as gardening. It's also been said that, growing a garden is the most revolutionary thing you can do........and you get strawberries.
Hopefully, there will be enough of us to help soften the inevitable coming transition. The knowledge is there, it can be done without directly competing against the current BAU situation, and in the end, the only truly sustainable system.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
-
Quinny - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3337
- Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: The absurd impracticality of avoiding civilizational col
by Plantagenet » Fri 23 Aug 2013, 02:53:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '
')Some of you folks have a few misconceptions about population. Population growth always expands under difficult circumstances. Populations under famine have one of the highest birth rates...... No way are rising oil costs going to lower population levels.
')Some of you folks have a few misconceptions about population. Population growth always expands under difficult circumstances. Populations under famine have one of the highest birth rates...... No way are rising oil costs going to lower population levels.
You have a misconception about what the word "famine" means. It doesn't matter what thebirthrate is because in a famine people are dying due to lack of food, babies included. This definitely results in population drops
AND If rising oil costs result in famines then population will definitely decrease
-
Plantagenet - Expert
- Posts: 26765
- Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
