Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Living with renewable energy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039

    Living with renewable energy

    A paper dispelling the old "freezing in the dark" bugaboo cooked up to dissuade the public about the "dangers" of alternative energy sources:

    Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...512?via%3Dihub
    Here, we develop a simple, bottom-up model to estimate a practical minimal threshold for the final energy consumption required to provide decent material livings to the entire global population. We find that global final energy consumption in 2050 could be reduced to the levels of the 1960s, despite a population three times larger. However, such a world requires a massive rollout of advanced technologies across all sectors, as well as radical demand-side changes to reduce consumption – regardless of income – to levels of sufficiency. Sufficiency is, however, far more materially generous in our model than what those opposed to strong reductions in consumption often assume.
    A "decent" material living standard is defined in table 1. All basic needs met, plus some extras. It's less that some of us have now, but more than what the majority of the world population lives on.

    Factors considered include imbalances in current distributions, projected energy use and population growth in the future, potential advances in energy efficiency, food calories, age groups, regional variations, water use, and comparisons with other existing studies and models.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    A paper dispelling the old "freezing in the dark" bugaboo cooked up to dissuade the public about the "dangers" of alternative energy sources:

    Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...512?via%3Dihub


    A "decent" material living standard is defined in table 1. All basic needs met, plus some extras. It's less that some of us have now, but more than what the majority of the world population lives on.

    Factors considered include imbalances in current distributions, projected energy use and population growth in the future, potential advances in energy efficiency, food calories, age groups, regional variations, water use, and comparisons with other existing studies and models.
    Hi Noclevername,

    I disagree with the narrative presented in this paper. There is much evidence that health. longevity and happiness increase with energy usage. The authors admit it with caveats. Meh. There are many judgemental statements about how we should live. Meh.

    I agree there are huge issues facing humanity and mostly related to our ever growing voracity for energy. But I don't see that we will cease building bigger bridges, tunnels, telescopes, particle accelerators, rockets, etc., which will demand more energy. Maybe we could curtail our individual consumption but I don't believe we would. More, I'm not convinced we should.

    cheers,

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Hi Noclevername,

    I disagree with the narrative presented in this paper. There is much evidence that health. longevity and happiness increase with energy usage. The authors admit it with caveats. Meh. There are many judgemental statements about how we should live. Meh.

    I agree there are huge issues facing humanity and mostly related to our ever growing voracity for energy. But I don't see that we will cease building bigger bridges, tunnels, telescopes, particle accelerators, rockets, etc., which will demand more energy. Maybe we could curtail our individual consumption but I don't believe we would. More, I'm not convinced we should.

    cheers,
    So you prefer a short unsustainable existence for our species ?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So you prefer a short unsustainable existence for our species ?
    Hi again Noclevername,

    Questioning whether I 'prefer a short unsustainable existence for our species' is off. You see only your solution to be viable. Good. I do not believe it is viable but I do not judge your motivations. I assume we care equally. I have no sense you hold the moral or ethical high ground on this important issue and thank you for refraining from such assumptions.

    I have no solutions for many of our growing problems and issues. It is not inconceivable to me that we will be hit with some Climate Change related cataclysm. My estimation is that a growing World economy and related increasing technological prowess is our best hope for dealing with such an eventuality. Artificially manipulating energy supply and demand through proscribed individual usage seems counterproductive and will not fix the damage done to the environment and will only reduce increasing impact.

    cheers

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    A paper dispelling the old "freezing in the dark" bugaboo cooked up to dissuade the public about the "dangers" of alternative energy sources:
    Could you point out where it discussed this? The "freezing in the dark" issue, as I understand it, has to do with limitations of ground based solar derived energy at higher latitudes. Solar tends to be limited in winter months at high latitudes, but that's when requirements for heating are greatest. If restricted to solar, that would require either long term storage (expensive) or long distance transmission (also expensive and with energy losses). Wind may help, but it depends on location. Nuclear, of course, wouldn't have such limitations.

    A "decent" material living standard is defined in table 1. All basic needs met, plus some extras. It's less that some of us have now, but more than what the majority of the world population lives on.
    I read through a fair bit of that article, but I didn't get a good idea of what was meant by "less that some of us have now." While I see a lot of merit in improving efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels, there will be a lot of resistance if there is an attempt to force people to lower their living standards. It would probably be counterproductive to try to dramatically raise energy prices or force rationing, and would be very detrimental to the economy. My take on it is that it would be more productive to focus on R&D on lowering and stabilizing solar, wind, and nuclear power prices, along with energy storage, so they can replace fossil fuels without trying to force people to live with less.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Questioning whether I 'prefer a short unsustainable existence for our species' is off. You see only your solution to be viable. Good. I do not believe it is viable but I do not judge your motivations. I assume we care equally. I have no sense you hold the moral or ethical high ground on this important issue and thank you for refraining from such assumptions.
    I made no moral judgements. My only assumption is of practical matters, based on evidence. But I apologize for my tone, it was unnecessarily confrontational.

    I have no solutions for many of our growing problems and issues. It is not inconceivable to me that we will be hit with some Climate Change related cataclysm. My estimation is that a growing World economy and related increasing technological prowess is our best hope for dealing with such an eventuality.
    Technological prowess is not related to increased consumption. It's a faulty premise.

    Unsustainable growth is just that. Our best solution for avoiding mass death and suffering is to change the way we live and use our material environment technologically, industrially, and personally. Avoidable cataclysm is not just a matter of opinion or belief, it is what the vast majority of scientific evidence predicts.

    Artificially manipulating energy supply and demand through proscribed individual usage seems counterproductive and will not fix the damage done to the environment and will only reduce increasing impact.
    It will not solve the whole problem by itself, no. But reducing impact is a necessary part of any solution. We need to build a system that can support us when the ongoing damage of our current system becomes too great to sustain our population.

    If you're bleeding, you don't throw away your bandage because you think it'll be uncomfortable to wear.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Could you point out where it discussed this? The "freezing in the dark" issue, as I understand it, has to do with limitations of ground based solar derived energy at higher latitudes. Solar tends to be limited in winter months at high latitudes, but that's when requirements for heating are greatest. If restricted to solar, that would require either long term storage (expensive) or long distance transmission (also expensive and with energy losses). Wind may help, but it depends on location. Nuclear, of course, wouldn't have such limitations.
    Freezing In The Dark is a phrase from the Reagan years, which has been adopted by many anti-environment and pro-fossil fuel concerns to pooh-pooh the notion of renewable power altogether for most of my lifetime. I used it in that context.

    I read through a fair bit of that article, but I didn't get a good idea of what was meant by "less that some of us have now." While I see a lot of merit in improving efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels, there will be a lot of resistance if there is an attempt to force people to lower their living standards. It would probably be counterproductive to try to dramatically raise energy prices or force rationing, and would be very detrimental to the economy.
    Our lifestyle and economy is going to change one way or another. Either under intentional human direction, or because it collapses when our ecosystems do.

    My take on it is that it would be more productive to focus on R&D on lowering and stabilizing solar, wind, and nuclear power prices, along with energy storage, so they can replace fossil fuels without trying to force people to live with less.
    Reduction in use and research into better use are not mutually exclusive courses of action. And the paper did mention that energy advances would be necessary even to accomplish the goals presented.

    A survivable reduction in energy consumption is probably the best case scenario. Better than an uncontrolled reduction via disaster.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Freezing In The Dark is a phrase from the Reagan years, which has been adopted by many anti-environment and pro-fossil fuel concerns to pooh-pooh the notion of renewable power altogether for most of my lifetime. I used it in that context.
    It was completely valid until fairly recently. In the Reagan years, nuclear was the only practical non-fossil energy source that could be expanded. Solar and wind were far too expensive, and there were only so many places to build dams. It's only been the last 15 years or so that prices came down enough for some serious applications and only the last few years they've really dropped enough to start to match other energy sources in cost for general application. However, they are still intermittent energy sources, and storage is still an issue, even for short term use. "Freezing in the dark" is still a real issue for the winter in higher latitudes if you restrict your energy sources.

    Our lifestyle and economy is going to change one way or another. Either under intentional human direction, or because it collapses when our ecosystems do.
    Perhaps, but the issue now is how to get people on board in the first place. I can't really discuss much about what I think has been an unproductive approach because of the politics rule, but trying to force people to live with less, rather than working with them so they can have as much or more than they currently do with cleaner energy is, I think, a big factor in push back.

    A survivable reduction in energy consumption is probably the best case scenario. Better than an uncontrolled reduction via disaster.
    I disagree. Given that the key concern is CO2 going into the atmosphere, that should be the focus. Energy use may well decrease with higher efficiency, but that shouldn't be the priority.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    It was completely valid until fairly recently. In the Reagan years, nuclear was the only practical non-fossil energy source that could be expanded. Solar and wind were far too expensive, and there were only so many places to build dams. It's only been the last 15 years or so that prices came down enough for some serious applications and only the last few years they've really dropped enough to start to match other energy sources in cost for general application. However, they are still intermittent energy sources, and storage is still an issue, even for short term use. "Freezing in the dark" is still a real issue for the winter in higher latitudes if you restrict your energy sources.
    Well, I think that's a matter of improving distribution and storage, not an innately unsolvable problem.

    Perhaps, but the issue now is how to get people on board in the first place. I can't really discuss much about what I think has been an unproductive approach because of the politics rule, but trying to force people to live with less, rather than working with them so they can have as much or more than they currently do with cleaner energy is, I think, a big factor in push back.
    We can't have "as much or more". We're burning our capital rather than interest right now.


    I disagree. Given that the key concern is CO2 going into the atmosphere, that should be the focus. Energy use may well decrease with higher efficiency, but that shouldn't be the priority.
    Increases in efficiency have, at this point, only driven increases in energy usage rather than reductions. We buy more when it's cheaper.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboun...(conservation)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well, I think that's a matter of improving distribution and storage, not an innately unsolvable problem.
    And I didn’t say it was innately unsolvable. I was pointing out that with solar, it either requires long term storage or long distance transmission which are both expensive. Wind can be helpful if it is available nearby, but nuclear doesn’t have those problems.

    We can't have "as much or more". We're burning our capital rather than interest right now.
    We can’t have as much or more energy production? That’s news to me. Why not?

    Increases in efficiency have, at this point, only driven increases in energy usage rather than reductions. We buy more when it's cheaper.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboun...(conservation)
    . . . And? Why is this a concern if it doesn’t involve co2 emissions?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,001
    The move should be to more power, and less on scarcity. Were I to go back in time and do away with FDR, the wetlands would likely be in much better shape. No WWII? No raid on Ploesti, which ranked right there with Saddam’s dynamiting of well-heads. Had the Axis powers won, overpopulation, is reduced...but at what cost? FDR was likely the least green leader ever. So be it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    And I didn’t say it was innately unsolvable. I was pointing out that with solar, it either requires long term storage or long distance transmission which are both expensive. Wind can be helpful if it is available nearby, but nuclear doesn’t have those problems.



    We can’t have as much or more energy production? That’s news to me. Why not?



    . . . And? Why is this a concern if it doesn’t involve co2 emissions?
    There will be a long transition period before we go all-renewable. It's not going to happen overnight. We still have to worry about the effects of our energy sources, for at least a generation, probably more. So yes, the amount of energy we use is a concern.

    Energy storage and transmission are major areas of active research and development. By the time we completely abandon fossil fuels we'll likely have mature infrastructures being built for those purposes.

    Nuclear is not getting any more popular, though, if anything it's low and getting lower. I can't see a big turnaround in public attitudes happening in the foreseeable future. Mass implementation is just not going to be accepted by the same generation that calls for dismantling of today's nuclear power, maybe their kids will turn around and embrace it.

    There are, as you said, limits on wind and solar in locations on Earth. If we need more power we can always go further than this planet. Solar power satellites should be able to transmit to any point on Earth, including the far north. And launch costs will likely be at a level to allow power sats by then.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,282
    Could I ask: what is the question, or what are the questions here? Is this about Utopia or “real” politics?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Could I ask: what is the question, or what are the questions here? Is this about Utopia or “real” politics?
    Well, it's not about politics, it's about physical infrastructures and energy economy. Indirectly it's about material culture; manufacturing and overall resource use.

    I don't know how extrapolating constraints on energy consumption could be considered "Utopia".
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,097
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    The move should be to more power, and less on scarcity. Were I to go back in time and do away with FDR, the wetlands would likely be in much better shape. No WWII? No raid on Ploesti, which ranked right there with Saddam’s dynamiting of well-heads. Had the Axis powers won, overpopulation, is reduced...but at what cost? FDR was likely the least green leader ever. So be it.
    Do not go there. FDR and the Axis might be more historical than political at this point, but advocating the Axis winning as way of reducing population is really rather questionable - are you advocating genocide? (Don't answer that question)
    But Saddam is entirely to close to current events. This will earn you an infraction.

    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,291
    I live in an unusual place. We have solar, wind, natural gas, and hydro power right now. Most of those are renewables. 2 decades ago, we even had coal and oil. 3 to 4 decades ago, we had nuclear power right in the city. As of now, we have 2 nuclear plants within 250 miles of the city of Buffalo. We also have some of the highest power costs in the nation. Why?

    Transmission of resources out of the local area.

    I am not poo-hooing the idea, but if we want workable infrastructure, we need to look at the whole picture. We also need to consider that cost of the transfer of power to other areas should be eaten by the receiver not the shipper. One of the issues is, there are several large cities within NY that are running an energy deficit of all kinds, not just renewables. They do not have the resource of space to drop a plant of some kind in their location, largely because they don't bear the costs of transmission, or more correctly, they bear some of the cost which is not remotely proportional to the utility of said energy. That drives up the price elsewhere. And it isn't just a dollar price tag, but a ecological price tag. At the moment, we (we, as in the city of Buffalo) are turning brown fields into solar and wind generation and cleaning them up in the process. Eventually, all that brown space will run out and we'll have to consider doing something else. We've had hydro power for a good long time, but even that has an ecological price.

    If the cost went up, well, I think they (as in everyone not sitting on top of a particular set of resources) would get on board coming up with a better plan. If all it takes is more cash, people tend to get lazy.

    Edit - Turning brown space into energy generation is not free, but if you're trying to reclaim damaged land, it's not a bad choice. Plus it drags in other businesses that hated the idea of having a chemical dump between them and the waterfront. A windmill or solar cell plant is a much nicer neighbor.
    Solfe

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well, it's not about politics, it's about physical infrastructures and energy economy. Indirectly it's about material culture; manufacturing and overall resource use.

    I don't know how extrapolating constraints on energy consumption could be considered "Utopia".
    So what is the question, I apologise if the question is clear to others.?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    So what is the question, I apologise if the question is clear to others.?
    Just throwing the topic out for discussion. Not every thread is a question.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,282
    Well in discussion the paper in the OP seems naiive in the Utopian sense that we do not have any international agreement on redistribution of wealth or energy . Similarly there is a danger of assuming the wealthy nations have a correct culture for sustainability. Before the last couple of centuries there were no prime movers, wood was a heating fuel and grass and oats fed the horses.

    So a decent living is achievable but the elephants in the argument are the overpopulation, trend toward mass movement of people, conflict between peoples and dwindling resources. These elephants are linked to each other.

    It seems to me that solar converted energy has finally got momentum, it came gradually and then suddenly like the Hemingway quote, but is a glimmer of hope in the global warming big problem.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Well in discussion the paper in the OP seems naiive in the Utopian sense that we do not have any international agreement on redistribution of wealth or energy .
    That's outside the area of the paper and the Forum. It merely shows that using foreseeable methods a sustainable civilization can be achieved. How to implement the possibility gets heavily into politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Similarly there is a danger of assuming the wealthy nations have a correct culture for sustainability.
    Well yes, that was kind of my point. Changes are needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    So a decent living is achievable but the elephants in the argument are the overpopulation, trend toward mass movement of people, conflict between peoples and dwindling resources. These elephants are linked to each other.
    Yes. Those were not the focus of this study, but you are correct.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,282
    I am reminded of professor Thring and his happiness index. I am being critical because that kind of analysis gets science or engineering a bad name for failing to see the bigger picture. Like when nuclear energy was going to be “too cheap to meter” . We must not get into politics, but scientists must be aware of context.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    There will be a long transition period before we go all-renewable. It's not going to happen overnight. We still have to worry about the effects of our energy sources, for at least a generation, probably more. So yes, the amount of energy we use is a concern.
    The amount of CO2 we produce is the concern and I doubt we will go all renewable (with the current definition of renewable) for centuries at least. Improved energy efficiency is fine, curtailment is not. The practical issue as I see it is moving forward with energy choices that are practical and acceptable to the population. Heavy energy use curtailment is extremely unlikely to be acceptable, and trying to force it on people is a good way to get them to oppose the changes you want.

    Energy storage and transmission are major areas of active research and development. By the time we completely abandon fossil fuels we'll likely have mature infrastructures being built for those purposes.
    Well, I am more interested in the next 50 years.

    Nuclear is not getting any more popular, though, if anything it's low and getting lower. I can't see a big turnaround in public attitudes happening in the foreseeable future. Mass implementation is just not going to be accepted by the same generation that calls for dismantling of today's nuclear power, maybe their kids will turn around and embrace it.
    In the US there has been a major platform policy change that could have a major effect on this going forward. It’s becoming clear to more people that if we are to have a functioning economy and simultaneously dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, renewables alone aren’t going to do it. Other countries will have to decide for themselves, but China for example is going ahead with nuclear along with looking into advanced reactor designs.

    There are, as you said, limits on wind and solar in locations on Earth. If we need more power we can always go further than this planet. Solar power satellites should be able to transmit to any point on Earth, including the far north. And launch costs will likely be at a level to allow power sats by then.
    Maybe, I would like to see that, but the prices really would have to come down (probably requiring lunar or asteroid mining to reach it), and there are of course technical issues. I doubt this would happen for a number of decades at best.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The amount of CO2 we produce is the concern and I doubt we will go all renewable (with the current definition of renewable) for centuries at least. Improved energy efficiency is fine, curtailment is not. The practical issue as I see it is moving forward with energy choices that are practical and acceptable to the population. Heavy energy use curtailment is extremely unlikely to be acceptable, and trying to force it on people is a good way to get them to oppose the changes you want.
    Well, we get the changes that happen, not the ones we want. I'd rather have the world's capacity to support us sustained under protest than fail catastrophically. Either way there will be a struggle, but one is much deadlier than the other.

    Well, I am more interested in the next 50 years.
    Which it likely will have to be.


    In the US there has been a major platform policy change that could have a major effect on this going forward. It’s becoming clear to more people that if we are to have a functioning economy and simultaneously dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, renewables alone aren’t going to do it. Other countries will have to decide for themselves, but China for example is going ahead with nuclear along with looking into advanced reactor designs.
    Maybe so. I hope you're right. But as things stand now, I don't see a rosy future for nuclear acceptance on large scales.

    Renewables aren't going to do it if we keep up our current "it" and methods of acquiring "it". Which it's become apparent is not without major consequences, far worse consequences than losing our X-Boxes and Range Rovers.

    Maybe, I would like to see that, but the prices really would have to come down (probably requiring lunar or asteroid mining to reach it), and there are of course technical issues. I doubt this would happen for a number of decades at best.
    Very true. The energy sources available on our planet will have to suffice, and we have to consider the effects of those sources.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I am reminded of professor Thring and his happiness index. I am being critical because that kind of analysis gets science or engineering a bad name for failing to see the bigger picture. Like when nuclear energy was going to be “too cheap to meter” . We must not get into politics, but scientists must be aware of context.
    The context is our ecosystem is falling apart. So modeling what factors may directly affect our lives when relying on renewables seems relevant.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,097
    What bothers me is all the stuff that we currently have the technology for, that we could be doing now, with virtually no change in our infrastructure, that we aren't doing.

    I drive a car that gets around 50 to 60 miles per gallon (a Kia Niro) and it is a perfectly ordinary car to drive - normal gasoline, don't plug it in, ordinary acceleration, etc. There are many other models out there that are similar. The average fuel economy in the US is apparently half that (25 mpg). So, without much effort, we could half the amount of CO2 we generate from cars.

    I'm sure there are plenty of other examples across the all energy uses, of "low-hanging" fruit that we could be picking now. Yet, if anything, we are going in the opposite direction.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The context is our ecosystem is falling apart. So modeling what factors may directly affect our lives when relying on renewables seems relevant.
    I would not want to prejudice it by saying it is 'falling apart' but I agree our environment has been progressing toward human induced Climate Change for several hundreds of years. I admit it is ironic that our gas spewing economic wealth underwrites the science and technology which informs us of our dire circumstances. Humanity is wonderous and it should probably tread more lightly.

    I hope Climate Change creeps up on us. Slowly but surely we could proceed with solutions in Climate Control. I'm alarmed at the possibility of Climate related cataclysms. Will a land based ice shelf collapse into the ocean? Will storms become more energetic and frequent?

    While its shortcomings are innumerable, I believe a regulated freewheeling market is the best way for us to move forward in the face of Climate Change and other pressing issues. It does not tread lightly and is slower to react than many would like but the world economy, at greater than USD 70 Trillion, is, IMO, the best tool we have to apply human resources to our problems. Controlled economies have been tried and they do not work.

    Also the notion that people need to be educated as to what they need worries me. Memes of Soccer Moms in Range Rovers leave me cold. The majority of the world is taking advantage of growing opportunity at the type of wealth the West has enjoyed for generations. I see this as a positive sign for our future.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,039
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    I would not want to prejudice it by saying it is 'falling apart' but I agree our environment has been progressing toward human induced Climate Change for several hundreds of years. I admit it is ironic that our gas spewing economic wealth underwrites the science and technology which informs us of our dire circumstances. Humanity is wonderous and it should probably tread more lightly.

    I hope Climate Change creeps up on us. Slowly but surely we could proceed with solutions in Climate Control. I'm alarmed at the possibility of Climate related cataclysms. Will a land based ice shelf collapse into the ocean? Will storms become more energetic and frequent?

    While its shortcomings are innumerable, I believe a regulated freewheeling market is the best way for us to move forward in the face of Climate Change and other pressing issues. It does not tread lightly and is slower to react than many would like but the world economy, at greater than USD 70 Trillion, is, IMO, the best tool we have to apply human resources to our problems. Controlled economies have been tried and they do not work.

    Also the notion that people need to be educated as to what they need worries me. Memes of Soccer Moms in Range Rovers leave me cold. The majority of the world is taking advantage of growing opportunity at the type of wealth the West has enjoyed for generations. I see this as a positive sign for our future.
    The growing evidence suggests we are already at several ecological feedback tipping points at present, including that of climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly stated that we may already be changing too late, but if not we are certainly in a time crunch right now, today.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,282
    It is an irony that extreme weather swings seem to be part of global warming and that probably increases energy use for both heating and cooling. Some but not all countries are now significantly using renewables and nuclear sources, with a long way to go to cut carbon burning. It is pointing out the obvious to say that solar energy could meet our needs, many times over in fact, but those political and vested elephants are in the room, as Swift says. At least vehicles are well on the way to lower C use, and the evidence is that people are happy to switch when the price is right. So the change can be regulated by fiscal policy.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,097
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Will storms become more energetic and frequent?
    "Will"? I think we're already there (LINK1, LINK2)
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The growing evidence suggests we are already at several ecological feedback tipping points at present, including that of climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly stated that we may already be changing too late, but if not we are certainly in a time crunch right now, today.
    My point is that we have been at 'ecological feedback tipping points' for a long time. Usage of fire put us on a precarious evolutionary journey wrt Climate Change. Had we not progressed as we have, we would have been unaware. At this point our growing science, technology and energy resources ironically put us in a better situation to deal with it.

    Swift, if the world had access to the same transportation as you do, Climate Change would be accelerated. The document presented in OP would severely limit transportation, especially for Western Countries.

    You are not the first to call upon us to change our ways before imminent ruin does. And you are not the first to use the science to indict our behavioural shortcomings and propose social and cultural change. I think the solutions with the best chance of success for humanity will lean on our nature rather than attempt to change it.

    cheers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •