World Energy Use - There's No Tomorrow - Let's Fix This!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I just found the time to watch the whole cartoon. Its depressing, but flawed on the ultimate assessment of energy
available.
Solar power alone could power the whole US, if people would just prioritize. The same goes for nuclear fusion. Yes it always has been 20 years in the future, but only because nobody wanted to invest in it.
Here is an interesting article if you want to know why we dont have fusion power plants today:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/eu-research-idUKL6E8FC6W620120413" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To quote:

"The European Union has poured over 100 billion euros into technology research carried out by companies and academics over the last 25 years to try to keep up with U.S. and Asian innovation."

That are the EU (the worlds largest economy, mind you) expenditures on ALL technology. At today's rates that would about
130 billon dollars in 25(!!!!) years.
The US military budget is more than 4 times that in a single year!

So, if the space in the "bottles" for the cute little bacteria gets to small, we just need to re-prioritize where and how we spend our money. In addition to that, population growth will inevitably stop, as countries get richer. Exponential growth is just an unrealistic idealization of the observed data, from the bacteria and elsewhere it is know that growth more follows a logistic function which settles into a stable end state (at reasonable growth rates....it can turn chaotic at rates like 200-300 % but those are not common in nature).


So no there is no need to give up on globalization (which is good for everyone) and to fall back to medieval provincialism and an innovation-unfriendly, equally medieval, monetary system (proposed as a "solution" in that cartoon).
 
CWO4Mann said:
Herm said:
Its all doom, that is why I wont be bothered to get out of bed on Nov 6 to vote for Obama.. its of no use.

That's OK, on November 7th you will be roused from bed at a very early 3AM with banging on your door. Better sleep in striped pajamas that night so as not to freeze when you are herded onto the trains.
Can you explain that a bit more?
Are there mandatory train rides for non-voters?
 
klapauzius said:
In addition to that, population growth will inevitably stop, as countries get richer.
That's something I was wondering about too. I think as a country becomes more industrialized, the population stops growing. I heard somewhere that the US population would actually be shrinking if it weren't for all of the immigration.
 
AndyH said:
TickTock said:
AndyH said:
<snip>
Besides - reclaiming some of our self sufficiency does not mean we're magically transported back to 1469! Our parents/grandparents could grow their own food, make their own butter, and pump their own water before oil. Should we settle for being less intelligent or less capable than they were?
Nothing magic about it at all. In fact it's going to be down right ugly. When you carve out your compound, make sure you don't forget the razor wire and lots of ammunition.
Some have chosen to see the world that way. I don't agree. A total break-down is one possibility but it's certainly not the only possibility, and I've not yet seen anything that suggests it's even highly probable.

Though it wouldn't be the first time some portions of humanity have struggled to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
You don't have to be a victim to be an optimist. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
 
Scary video, and I do wish it offered better solutions than "Buy local, ride a bike, learn to grow your own food, because the apocalypse is coming."

I hate to say it, but what is most likely to reduce the growth is a world war as has happened in the past. When costs skyrocket and fear and greed take over, aggression will occur followed by retaliation and destruction of life. The human population will be reduced and then slowly start to grow again.

Just a guess.
 
JustinC said:
Scary video, and I do wish it offered better solutions than "Buy local, ride a bike, learn to grow your own food, because the apocalypse is coming."

I hate to say it, but what is most likely to reduce the growth is a world war as has happened in the past. When costs skyrocket and fear and greed take over, aggression will occur followed by retaliation and destruction of life. The human population will be reduced and then slowly start to grow again.

Just a guess.

Sorry, but wars dont limit growth seriously...unless you are thinking about some apocalyptic style
all out nuclear war or all-women armies that go at each other.

As for the past world wars, they have not been growth-limiting at all (does "baby-boom" ring a bell?)
 
Re: Baby Boom. Yeah, that war worked out well for us. Not the other guys.

The other difference would be the lack of available resources when the wars are over, so growth could not explode if/when the soldiers come home.

But maybe you're right. War may just be a symptom of lack of resource population limitation.
 
JustinC said:
Re: Baby Boom. Yeah, that war worked out well for us. Not the other guys.

The other difference would be the lack of available resources when the wars are over, so growth could not explode if/when the soldiers come home.

But maybe you're right. War may just be a symptom of lack of resource population limitation.
Neither Germany's nor Japan's postwar population was seriously impacted...It was mostly men that died and so populations quickly recovered.
Anyway, with resource scarcity as a reason for the war, how long would it last? A week or maybe two?

Besides, I think mankind as a whole has somewhat gotten past this method as a serious problem solver.
 
Smidge204 said:
AndyH said:
Besides - reclaiming some of our self sufficiency does not mean we're magically transported back to 1469!
I agree, but you'd never know that listening to the "There's no tomorrow" video...

=Smidge=
Absolutely, Smidge. And to add insult to injury, the video doesn't even cover all the 'first order' problem areas, much less the other levels.

So - is anyone here interested in contributing to a 'pile of solutions'?
 
smkettner said:
The great equalizer will be cost. Slowly the economics will decide the solutions.

Will it be as slow as in 70s oil crisis, like in IT bubble of 2001 or recent housing bubble?

Can you imagine US military paying $100/gallon to power jets/ships/tanks? What our taxes will look like in that case? I think at some point someone will attempt to regulate carbon resources like they regulate uranium, so only limited number of players can affect limited market...
 
klapauzius said:
I just found the time to watch the whole cartoon. Its depressing, but flawed on the ultimate assessment of energy
available. ...

So, if the space in the "bottles" for the cute little bacteria gets to small, we just need to re-prioritize where and how we spend our money. In addition to that, population growth will inevitably stop, as countries get richer. Exponential growth is just an unrealistic idealization of the observed data, from the bacteria and elsewhere it is know that growth more follows a logistic function which settles into a stable end state (at reasonable growth rates....it can turn chaotic at rates like 200-300 % but those are not common in nature).


So no there is no need to give up on globalization (which is good for everyone) and to fall back to medieval provincialism and an innovation-unfriendly, equally medieval, monetary system (proposed as a "solution" in that cartoon).
Globalization only works in an age of cheap energy. Look at one of China's millionaires - She started recovering recyclable paper from LA landfills and built it into a business that buys waste paper from the US, ships it to China to make cardboard, and returns it to the US around all the junk we buy and trash. [2]

The bacteria in bottles isn't about money - it's about population, and also about our demand on the planet, and our waste products, and ... Sorry, it's not simple, and it's much more exponential than logistic. It's my understanding that boom/bust is the predominant model in the natural world - if you've got something that shows logistic growth in the 'real world' I'd love to see it.

Barter and local currency is happening all over the world as we speak - including in a number of places in the US - and it's working well!

I just finished digging through population growth rates, literacy, infant mortality, etc. for a school project and while it's true that a couple of the highly developed countries have gone to negative growth rates, they're in the very tiny minority and significantly offset by even our 0.899% growth rate[1].

In the US alone, with a less than 1% annual growth rate, we're adding 1,660,254 people this year - 4,549 each day. Cutting their allowance is not going to allow us to squeeze more people on the planet.

[1] 2012 Estimate, CIA World Fact Book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

edit
[2] http://www.npr.org/2012/04/26/150735732/following-garbages-long-journey-around-the-earth
 
UkrainianKozak said:
smkettner said:
The great equalizer will be cost. Slowly the economics will decide the solutions.

Will it be as slow as in 70s oil crisis, like in IT bubble of 2001 or recent housing bubble?

Can you imagine US military paying $100/gallon to power jets/ships/tanks? What our taxes will look like in that case? I think at some point someone will attempt to regulate carbon resources like they regulate uranium, so only limited number of players can affect limited market...
$100 a gallon for JP8 would be a bargain in some places! We're paying about $400 a gallon for the fuel used in Afghanistan! (in 2009 $$$)
One U.S. Army official has said the "fully burdened" cost of transporting fuel into remote areas can be as high as $1,000 per gallon.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...rcy-kaptur-says-gasoline-troops-afghanistan-/
 
dgpcolorado said:
Among the claims of proponents: fusion won't produce radioactive waste like fission power. Nope, the intense radiation of the fusion reaction will make containment vessels and other process components radioactive.

Yes, but it is much better then to have a contaminated process components then to have radioactive waste from the reaction on top of it.
You can reuse contaminated components and materials in many cases, you can't say so about radioactive waste from current nuclear plants.
 
Well, I'm talking about supply point, not destination charge ;)
I think I know what I'm trying to say.

AndyH said:
UkrainianKozak said:
smkettner said:
The great equalizer will be cost. Slowly the economics will decide the solutions.

Will it be as slow as in 70s oil crisis, like in IT bubble of 2001 or recent housing bubble?

Can you imagine US military paying $100/gallon to power jets/ships/tanks? What our taxes will look like in that case? I think at some point someone will attempt to regulate carbon resources like they regulate uranium, so only limited number of players can affect limited market...
$100 a gallon for JP8 would be a bargain in some places! We're paying about $400 a gallon for the fuel used in Afghanistan!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-
 
Guys, before we get into a fusion tangent, let's remember that we can solve ALL of our current problems - everything listed in the video, for example, with ZERO NEW TECH. Everything we need is on the planet right now - all we have to do is pull it out of the box (ok, some we'll have to make and box more of first ;)) and then put the tools to work.
 
AndyH said:
The bacteria in bottles isn't about money - it's about population, and also about our demand on the planet, and our waste products, and ... Sorry, it's not simple, and it's much more exponential than logistic. It's my understanding that boom/bust is the predominant model in the natural world - if you've got something that shows logistic growth in the 'real world' I'd love to see it.
Bacteria in a bottle may not be a good example. The only contraint is the size of the bottle and is unrealistic. Bacteria still must have other resources to multiply. If the bottle has enough resources to fill half with bacteria that will be the end of it. Many will fight and starve for resources. Others may die from the waste products.
 
smkettner said:
AndyH said:
The bacteria in bottles isn't about money - it's about population, and also about our demand on the planet, and our waste products, and ... Sorry, it's not simple, and it's much more exponential than logistic. It's my understanding that boom/bust is the predominant model in the natural world - if you've got something that shows logistic growth in the 'real world' I'd love to see it.
Bacteria in a bottle may not be a good example. The only contraint is the size of the bottle and is unrealistic. Bacteria still must have other resources to multiply. If the bottle has enough resources to fill half with bacteria that will be the end of it. Many will fight and starve for resources. Others may die from the waste products.
Sure - the bottle is a tool to demonstrate exponential growth so yes, food and waste is a consideration.

But please consider these bits: 1. the current human growth rate is essentially geometric, and 2. right now, we are consuming and polluting as if we have between 1.4 and 1.7 Earths.

Are we slowing down? No - to get out of our global recession, everyone's scrambling to increase growth.
 
Back
Top