Viability of renewable energy

[Greg Boyles]

The distance on one tank / battery charge has nothing to do with efficiency. Don't mix that up. Anyway, the action radius of the electric cars is increasing rapidly, and charge time is decreasing quickly. I agree that current technology isn't ready, but I think it's coming soon.

 

So is the end of cheap fossil fuels and our current massive industrial capacity.

 

Even if scientists do manage to come up with a miraculously efficient and practical battery system, not made from elements that are rare and difficult to extract, it may be simply to late. We may well have have started losing our industrial might and the ability to convert our massive fossil fuel energy systems.

 

The conversion from horse power to fossil fuel power was increasingly assisted by the massive increase in energy made available by high EROEI fossil fuels.

 

That will not be the case with conversion of fossil fuels to electrcity. Solar energy has a signficantly lower EROEI than oil had when it was first extracted and processed. So we will be conducting a far mor massive conversion, due to a global population 2 or 3 times bigger than it was, on a falling energy budget as oil becomes scarcer an less economically viable.

 

"I could fill my tank with petrol and probably make it most of the way from Melbourne to Sydney.

 

Even with the most efficient battery technology to date, how far would you get with a full charge.......in a standard passenger vehicle. "

 

Who cares?

OK, it's going to be a pain in the neck swapping battery packs (recharging them is too slow to be a sensible option) but it's not that big a deal.

OK so you have to stop a bit more often.

Does that matter?

It's something like 900Km and 10 hours.

Are you not going to stop for a pee anyway?

 

The problem is that we don't have the infrastructure or technology set up yet.

 

It matters a great deal for transport of goods if trucks have to stop every 100km, or what ever, to swap out their batteries for example. Your cost of living will increase massively. Are you prepared to have a lower standard of living than you do at present.

 

I would think that any difference in infrastructure requirements would be offset by the fact that the energy is renewable, it doesn't require massive tankers risking massive spills requiring massive cleanup, and it won't get harder and harder to find. And at a certain point, space-based solar technology could take all the collection problems off-planet, where collection will be 144% better.

 

With declining oil production, where will all the rocket fuel come from to put this massive amount of infrastructure into space?

 

 

 

 

These is clearly two schools of thought aren't there.

 

Those that think that science will overcome all obstacles and allow us to carry on business as usual, very like the school of thought that god will provide.

 

And those like me who think that science will indeed continue supplying solutions and solving problems but that it will still not be sufficient to allow us to carry on business as usual.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Phi for All]

It matters a great deal for transport of goods if trucks have to stop every 100km, or what ever, to swap out their batteries for example. Your cost of living will increase massively. Are you prepared to have a lower standard of living than you do at present.

"100km, or what ever"?! How do IC trucks avoid stopping every 100km, or what ever? Bigger multiple tanks. Maybe someone will come up with a way to put bigger multiple batteries on a big truck, or figure a way to recharge the batteries when the driver steps on the brake going downhill. You seem so sure that the technology won't get better and you're positive the "cost of living will increase massively".

 

With declining oil production, where will all the rocket fuel come from to put this massive amount of infrastructure into space?

Why can't we continue to use cryogenic fuels like LH₂ and LO₂?

 

These is clearly two schools of thought aren't there.

 

Those that think that science will overcome all obstacles and allow us to carry on business as usual, very like the school of thought that god will provide.

 

And those like me who think that science will indeed continue supplying solutions and solving problems but that it will still not be sufficient to allow us to carry on business as usual.

Who said we get to carry on business as usual? It will require change. Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen, but I think it's a great opportunity. I think the change will be like discovering we don't have to track mud around the house, then go to great lengths cleaning it up. We can just take off our shoes before coming in.

[Greg Boyles]

"100km, or what ever"?! How do IC trucks avoid stopping every 100km, or what ever? Bigger multiple tanks. Maybe someone will come up with a way to put bigger multiple batteries on a big truck, or figure a way to recharge the batteries when the driver steps on the brake going downhill. You seem so sure that the technology won't get better and you're positive the "cost of living will increase massively".

 

And you are just as sure that technology WILLprovide an energy solution equal to fossil fuels that will allow all 7 billion of us to go on consuming as normal. There is absolutely no guarentee of that!

 

I find your faith in technology as troubling as a religious zealot's faith in his/her god.

 

Why can't we continue to use cryogenic fuels like LH₂ and LO₂?

 

Hydrogen production is the industrial method for generating hydrogen. Currently the dominant technology for direct production is steam reforming from hydrocarbons

I.E. Industrial quantities of hydrogen are currently produced from fossil fuel derived hydrocarbons. When oil production enters its decline so will rocket fuel production.

 

Who said we get to carry on business as usual? It will require change. Whether it's good or bad remains to be seen, but I think it's a great opportunity. I think the change will be like discovering we don't have to track mud around the house, then go to great lengths cleaning it up. We can just take off our shoes before coming in.

 

Because optimists like you NEVER seem to explicitly combine your hope in new technology with the sobering reality of the need to reduce our numbers and our consumption.

 

From my point of view your implicit assumption is that we don't really need to signficantly change anything because technology will eliminate the need for us to do so.

[CaptainPanic]

And you are just as sure that technology WILLprovide an energy solution equal to fossil fuels that will allow all 7 billion of us to go on consuming as normal. There is absolutely no guarentee of that!

 

I find your faith in technology as troubling as a religious zealot's faith in his/her god.

LOL. You're a fantastic debater. You're able to twist and turn, and if necessary to offend your opponents without using bad words. These are quite good skills, and in a twisted way I enjoy to have you around. Keeps me sharp.

 

But anyway... We are all 100% certain that there are NO guarantees about the future. So, no, we are not SURE that technology WILL provide anything. By posing the question like that, you already got your answer. But you didn't win the discussion.

 

Also, we're pretty certain (but not 100%) that we probably should not go on consuming as normal. One of the main pillars of almost every energy policy of every country is to save energy, and to recycle. Less consumption is less problems.

 

Trends suggest that electric cars will get more efficient. Trends suggest that solar and wind energy will get cheaper. We know trends, we hope that these will continue in the future, but we don't know the future.

[Greg Boyles]

LOL. You're a fantastic debater. You're able to twist and turn, and if necessary to offend your opponents without using bad words. These are quite good skills, and in a twisted way I enjoy to have you around. Keeps me sharp.

 

But anyway... We are all 100% certain that there are NO guarantees about the future. So, no, we are not SURE that technology WILL provide anything. By posing the question like that, you already got your answer. But you didn't win the discussion.

 

Also, we're pretty certain (but not 100%) that we probably should not go on consuming as normal. One of the main pillars of almost every energy policy of every country is to save energy, and to recycle. Less consumption is less problems.

 

Trends suggest that electric cars will get more efficient. Trends suggest that solar and wind energy will get cheaper. We know trends, we hope that these will continue in the future, but we don't know the future.

 

Well perhaps if you occasionally and explcitly acknowledged that reduction in numbers and consumption must be combined with advances in energy technology I might be less troubled and less prone to constantly remind you.

 

You always post this sort of thing:

 

"Trends suggest that electric cars will get more efficient. "

 

But you never seem to ever balance it with this sort of thing....except on this occasion:

 

"Also, we're pretty certain (but not 100%) that we probably should not go on consuming as normal. "

[CaptainPanic]

Well perhaps if you occasionally and explcitly acknowledged that reduction in numbers and consumption must be combined with advances in energy technology I might be less troubled and less prone to constantly remind you.

 

You always post this sort of thing:

 

"Trends suggest that electric cars will get more efficient. "

 

But you never seem to ever balance it with this sort of thing....except on this occasion:

 

"Also, we're pretty certain (but not 100%) that we probably should not go on consuming as normal. "

Why should I balance anything? You're the one posting the "comparison" between solar and nuclear (the OP), thereby inviting us to shoot holes in that piece of text. In this particular discussion, or any other discussion, it is not my task to give a balanced elaboration on the future of energy use.

 

I only wrote that previous post because you were putting words in the mouths of others, and twisted those words in such a way that you would always be right .

[Phi for All]

And you are just as sure that technology WILLprovide an energy solution equal to fossil fuels that will allow all 7 billion of us to go on consuming as normal. There is absolutely no guarentee of that!

This is a straw man, since I never said anything about solar, wind and geothermal being equal to fossil fuels. We have no idea what the future holds, and I don't think it will be anywhere near as bleak as you propose unless we dally and delay like we are being conned into by the oil concerns. Every day we fund oil with taxes while not funding alternatives is another day in the future of $20/gallon gasoline.

 

I find your faith in technology as troubling as a religious zealot's faith in his/her god.

Oooooh, very vivid. But I don't need faith like the zealot. We can see that the technology continues to improve. History tells us that there will continue to be breakthroughs if we bother to fund the research.

 

 

I.E. Industrial quantities of hydrogen are currently produced from fossil fuel derived hydrocarbons. When oil production enters its decline so will rocket fuel production.

Only because that remains the cheapest way to do it right now. When that changes, we can switch to many other alternatives. And those will probably become cheaper without oil competing against them.

 

 

Because optimists like you NEVER seem to explicitly combine your hope in new technology with the sobering reality of the need to reduce our numbers and our consumption.

 

From my point of view your implicit assumption is that we don't really need to signficantly change anything because technology will eliminate the need for us to do so.

There's that straw man again. We all KNOW there will be significant change, and most of us actually welcome it. I'm tired of hearing that Shell Oil in Nigeria flares 95% of it's natural gas extracted (compared to 0.6% in US oil fields), which actually contributes more to global warming than all other oil fields in the world combined [1], to say nothing of the health hazards to the Nigerian people.

 

Yes, we will have to consume less. Unlike you, I think that's a good thing. I'm a free market person, but scientifically it makes little sense to decrease efficiency of production and waste resources on so many choices of every product. This may be an opportunity for the market to actually demand that there be fewer choices of toasters based on available resources.

 

Well perhaps if you occasionally and explcitly acknowledged that reduction in numbers and consumption must be combined with advances in energy technology I might be less troubled and less prone to constantly remind you.

 

You always post this sort of thing:

 

"Trends suggest that electric cars will get more efficient. "

 

But you never seem to ever balance it with this sort of thing....except on this occasion:

 

"Also, we're pretty certain (but not 100%) that we probably should not go on consuming as normal. "

As has been pointed out, you put these words in our mouths. There will be change. We will have to adjust.

 

There will probably be less pollution. Water will probably be cleaner. Perhaps this may lead to space-based solar power, which will lead to transmitting power long distance via microwave, which could lead to a need to clear out all the satellite debris floating in LEO, which could allow us to re-purpose the weapons manufacturing we won't need since we're not invading for oil, which may make us all feel a lot safer. Optimists and pessimists alike.

[Greg Boyles]

Why should I balance anything? You're the one posting the "comparison" between solar and nuclear (the OP), thereby inviting us to shoot holes in that piece of text. In this particular discussion, or any other discussion, it is not my task to give a balanced elaboration on the future of energy use.

 

I only wrote that previous post because you were putting words in the mouths of others, and twisted those words in such a way that you would always be right .

 

If you agree that we must reduce our numbers and our consumption in combination with reneweable energy technology then why is that you resist so vehermently when I or other suggest that renewable energy sources or unlikely to be economically viable on the scale of 7 billion and counting humans?

 

I can only conclude that you do not really believe that population and consumption reduction are a required part of the equation. Or perhaps you just do not want to 'speak its name' due to the inevitable ethical difficulties.

 

And when I say 'you' I don't mean you personally. I mean you collectively, as in those who believe that 'technology will provide'.

 

And what has nuclear go to do with this? The original post was about the comparison between the economic viability of the concorde and the economic viability of huge scale solar and wind energy.

 

Oooooh, very vivid. But I don't need faith like the zealot. We can see that the technology continues to improve. History tells us that there will continue to be breakthroughs if we bother to fund the research.

 

Only because that remains the cheapest way to do it right now. When that changes, we can switch to many other alternatives. And those will probably become cheaper without oil competing against them.

 

In one breath you say that you are not a technology zealot and then in the next breath you mount the exact same argument that 'technology will always provide'.....'god will always provide'.

 

We can't assume that our technology will always come to our rescue when we $%&* up.

 

There a physical, resource and ecological limits to what we can acheive.

 

Obviously you simply cannot see yourself for what you are - some one who has replaced 'god' with 'technology'. You have internalised the mantra that 'technology will provide' and therefore will not consider the possibility that it may not always provide.

 

Technology has always increased through human history - a reasonable assessment. And yet despite this many civilisations have collapsed and disappeared often due to ecological over shoot is indicated by the archaelogical record. Why is our civilisation not vulnerable to sudden collapse like all the rest despite our technology?

 

 

Yes, we will have to consume less. Unlike you, I think that's a good thing. I'm a free market person, but scientifically it makes little sense to decrease efficiency of production and waste resources on so many choices of every product. This may be an opportunity for the market to actually demand that there be fewer choices of toasters based on available resources.

Not only consume less be less in numbers. There is little likelihood that the vast majority of westerners will signficantly reduce their consumption and their standard of living. There is even less likelihood that third worlders will give up on increasing their consumption to western levels. Therefore there must be less of us.

 

There will probably be less pollution. Water will probably be cleaner. Perhaps this may lead to space-based solar power, which will lead to transmitting power long distance via microwave, which could lead to a need to clear out all the satellite debris floating in LEO, which could allow us to re-purpose the weapons manufacturing we won't need since we're not invading for oil, which may make us all feel a lot safer. Optimists and pessimists alike.

 

How will water be cleaner? How will there be less pollution? So far all the evidence has been to the contrary. The long haul of human history demonstrates that more people means more pollution and dwindling and contaminated water supplies.

 

I don't see how renewable energy will change that. We will need to smelt even more metals and silicon etc. That cannot be done via renewable energy sources and hence attempts to switch to wind and solar energy will result in more pollution etc.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[the asinine cretin]

I was just reading this article. Interesting.

 

 

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how.

 

 

 

 

I wonder how factual this video is.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifF-MOuzM_s

 

Edited September 27, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V

[Phi for All]

If you agree that we must reduce our numbers and our consumption in combination with reneweable energy technology then why is that you resist so vehermently when I or other suggest that renewable energy sources or unlikely to be economically viable on the scale of 7 billion and counting humans?

I didn't agree that we must "reduce our numbers". Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that, because it sounds like you want to kill off a few hundred million extra mouths or so.

 

I resist your assumptions because you say it is "unlikely to be economically viable". I think the economics is more of a political topic. Scientifically, there are many advancements which may benefit when oil becomes so scarce that alternatives become more attractive. Right now the oil lobbies are exerting a powerful push to stay with existing technology and hopefully that grip will loosen and research funds will flow in a different direction. I've said this many ways many times but you continue to insist I'm being unrealistic.

 

I can only conclude that you do not really believe that population and consumption reduction are a required part of the equation. Or perhaps you just do not want to 'speak its name' due to the inevitable ethical difficulties.

Please, Mr. Tiptoe, speak its name. Tell me what I don't want.

 

Are you possibly suggesting that oil is good because it promotes war which reduces population?

 

In one breath you say that you are not a technology zealot and then in the next breath you mount the exact same argument that 'technology will always provide'.....'god will always provide'.

 

We can't assume that our technology will always come to our rescue when we $%&* up.

 

There a physical, resource and ecological limits to what we can acheive.

 

Obviously you simply cannot see yourself for what you are - some one who has replaced 'god' with 'technology'. You have internalised the mantra that 'technology will provide' and therefore will not consider the possibility that it may not always provide.

 

Technology has always increased through human history - a reasonable assessment. And yet despite this many civilisations have collapsed and disappeared often due to ecological over shoot is indicated by the archaelogical record. Why is our civilisation not vulnerable to sudden collapse like all the rest despite our technology?

There is always the possibility that our civilization will collapse. I maintain that it's more likely to happen the longer we wait for the inevitable without preparing for it. We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas and we need to start using those funds for research into alternative sources. No fanaticism, no misplaced beliefs. Pure and simple, if we continue to use oil at our present rate and don't start to switch to something renewable as soon as possible, we are more likely to risk a total collapse.

 

And let me make this perfectly clear, Greg Boyles. You are perilously close to a personal attack when you compare my assessment of current technological advancements to a belief in God. You push it even further by calling me out personally with phrases like, "you simply cannot see yourself for what you are". This is a personal judgement on your part and I feel it has no place in this discussion.

 

You keep ranting against gambling on technology, so perhaps you could tell us why you don't support efforts into renewable energy like wind and solar.

 

 

Not only consume less be less in numbers. There is little likelihood that the vast majority of westerners will signficantly reduce their consumption and their standard of living. There is even less likelihood that third worlders will give up on increasing their consumption to western levels. Therefore there must be less of us.

Scientifically speaking, not politically, what are you proposing?

 

 

How will water be cleaner? How will there be less pollution? So far all the evidence has been to the contrary. The long haul of human history demonstrates that more people means more pollution and dwindling and contaminated water supplies.

 

I don't see how renewable energy will change that. We will need to smelt even more metals and silicon etc. That cannot be done via renewable energy sources and hence attempts to switch to wind and solar energy will result in more pollution etc.

Having failed to push through your other arguments, you are moving the goalposts quite obviously towards over-population. Please start another thread if you want to discuss that.

 

How will alternative energies cause less pollution of water and air? Less oil being pulled out of the ground. Less burn off, or flaring, of natural gas. Less oil spills. Less refinery waste. The list is very long. I'm sure alternatives will create their own by-products, but as far as I've seen in the studies done, wind and solar are much more environment-friendly alternatives. And perhaps places like Nigeria will be able to focus their efforts on maintaining a livable population once the corruption their oil creates is gone. They have vast wealth but seem to keep losing people to famine, infections, poor health, neglect and steel poisoning.

[Greg Boyles]

I didn't agree that we must "reduce our numbers". Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that, because it sounds like you want to kill off a few hundred million extra mouths or so.

 

That is the usual slur I get, but I have no desire to cull humans. I am refering to fertility control, perferably voluntary but involuntary if necessary. And this is obviously the reason behind your eternal technology optimism, i.e. because you wish to avoid at all costs facing the fundamental problem of excess humans and the ethically difficult questions that arise from it.

 

I resist your assumptions because you say it is "unlikely to be economically viable". I think the economics is more of a political topic. Scientifically, there are many advancements which may benefit when oil becomes so scarce that alternatives become more attractive. Right now the oil lobbies are exerting a powerful push to stay with existing technology and hopefully that grip will loosen and research funds will flow in a different direction. I've said this many ways many times but you continue to insist I'm being unrealistic.

 

What is scientifically possible is meaningless on its own with respect to energy. To be a useful technological solution it must also be economically viable on a large scale. The resources required must be common, widely available and easy to extract and process. Which means that the technological solution will be cheap and available to most humans.

 

Solar panels are not cheap - the silicon and metals required to produce are very energy intensive to extract even if they are common resources. With fossil fuel production set to decline in the coming decades, solar panels will increase in cost rather than decrease.

 

On the other hand it is very easy to plant a canola crop and extract the oil from the seeds to use as diesel fuel. If necessary it can be done with low technology, including beasts of burdon. But then you run into the problem of it competing with food production for 7 billion, and counting, humans. So eve here we cannot escape the reality that we must reduce our numbers in combination with any renewable energy strategies

 

 

Are you possibly suggesting that oil is good because it promotes war which reduces population?

We have no choice. Massive population reduction will occur whether we want it or not. They only choice we have is how that will occur.

Through a massive program of fertility reduction, voluntary or involuntary. Or through war, famine, disease and genocide.

 

There is always the possibility that our civilization will collapse. I maintain that it's more likely to happen the longer we wait for the inevitable without preparing for it. We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas and we need to start using those funds for research into alternative sources. No fanaticism, no misplaced beliefs. Pure and simple, if we continue to use oil at our present rate and don't start to switch to something renewable as soon as possible, we are more likely to risk a total collapse.

Switching to renwables alone will not save us. With our current numbers we can never be free of the need to burn oil and coal even if we start a massive conversion to solar and wind energy. They will never provide the same amount of surplus energy as fossil fuels currently do. Therefore, regardless of a landscape filled with solar voltaics and wind turbines, or civilisation will still collapse as oil and coal production decline.

 

If we combine renewable energy strategies with depopulation then our civilisation might have some chance.

 

 

And let me make this perfectly clear, Greg Boyles. You are perilously close to a personal attack when you compare my assessment of current technological advancements to a belief in God. You push it even further by calling me out personally with phrases like, "you simply cannot see yourself for what you are". This is a personal judgement on your part and I feel it has no place in this discussion.

 

I stand by that comment Phi. An Israeli critic of Israeli foreign policy once said that Israelis/Jews have internalised their holocaust victimhood so that they can no longer see that, in some cases, they are visiting upon the Palestinians the same sorts of attrocities that were visited upon them by the Nazis. I believe that many advocates of technology have gotten themselves into a similar state of mind where they just cannot conceive any notion that humans and our civilisation are not protected from all things bad - technology will always provide an answer.

 

 

You keep ranting against gambling on technology, so perhaps you could tell us why you don't support efforts into renewable energy like wind and solar.

 

I am not against us switching to renewable energy sources as much as possible.

 

But I am against you (collectively not you personally) using this as an excuse to avoid facing up to the difficult responsibility we have towards the global population and our collective fertility.

 

 

Scientifically speaking, not politically, what are you proposing?

Scientifically speaking I am arguing that renewable energy technology cannot be implemented on the scale required to provide an equivalent amount of energy to what fossil fuels currently provide all 7 billion of us with.

 

I am arguing, on a scientific basis, that renewable energy strategies must go hand in hand with depopulation. I am arguing that depopulation is not optional but absolutely required in order to make renewable energy a viable alternative.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

If you agree that we must reduce our numbers and our consumption in combination with reneweable energy technology then why is that you resist so vehermently when I or other suggest that renewable energy sources or unlikely to be economically viable on the scale of 7 billion and counting humans?

Because the two have nothing to do with each other?

 

It's just economically interesting to get more efficient engines, thinner yet stronger packaging, insulated houses, efficient factories. The fact that our entire economy constantly searches for more efficient processes, and thereby eliminates wasting energy has absolutely nothing to do with the economic viability of sustainable energy.

[Greg Boyles]

Because the two have nothing to do with each other?

 

It's just economically interesting to get more efficient engines, thinner yet stronger packaging, insulated houses, efficient factories. The fact that our entire economy constantly searches for more efficient processes, and thereby eliminates wasting energy has absolutely nothing to do with the economic viability of sustainable energy.

 

Through a purely scientific prism then you are right they have nothing to do with each other.

 

But through an economic prism then the population issue is of paramount relevance to the viability of solar and wind energy.

[CaptainPanic]

Through a purely scientific prism then you are right they have nothing to do with each other.

 

But through an economic prism then the population issue is of paramount relevance to the viability of solar and wind energy.

No, economically the two have nothing to do with each other either.

 

Industries or people will search for a way to make their processes/households more efficient, and they might also choose to use sustainable energy, but the two things are not linked.

[Greg Boyles]

No, economically the two have nothing to do with each other either.

 

Industries or people will search for a way to make their processes/households more efficient, and they might also choose to use sustainable energy, but the two things are not linked.

 

Well Captain I think you are quite simply wrong!

 

You may have a good grasp of the science, but I just don't think you have a good grasp of the economic implications implementing this technology on a vast scale.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

Well Captain I think you are quite simply wrong!

 

You may have a good grasp of the science, but I just don't think you have a good grasp of the economic implications implementing this technology on a vast scale.

Well, if there is supposedly an economic link between energy savings and the use of sustainable energy for companies or private people, I invite you to explain it, rather than just tell me I'm wrong. Thanks.

Edited September 28, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Greg Boyles]

Well, if there is supposedly an economic link between energy savings and the use of sustainable energy for companies or private people, I invite you to explain it, rather than just tell me I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

We could start with the figures on that website I found that calculated we would need an area the size of Malaysia packed with solar voltaics in order to replace the US's current annual consumption of oil energy.

 

Then we could factor in the maintenance and replacement requirements for this along with need to expand it as the global population and energy demand grows.

 

We could figure out how many additional tonnes of aluminium, silicon and steel we would need to produce this array and over what time period.

 

We could figure out how much ongoing additional tonnes of aluminium, silicon and steel will be needed in order to maintain it and to expand it.

 

We could calculate the amount of energy that will be required to do all this and over what time period and compare it to the predictions of future oil production and the amount of energy that will provide over a given time period.

 

I don't have all these figure at hand but I am sure we could both come up with some rough estimates.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Since it's obvious the thrust here is politics rather than science, I've moved this

[CaptainPanic]

[...]I don't have all these figure at hand but I am sure we could both come up with some rough estimates.

I think it is impolite to make all these suggestions, and then place the burden to look up numbers on someone else.

It would be more appropriate it you would have ended your post with "I'll look up these numbers to back up my argument, and I'll get back to you a.s.a.p.

 

It's easy for you to discuss, because all you do is disagree and disbelieve, and all the work is done by others.

 

Anyway, I have already posted trends of the costs of solar and wind power. You can find the comparison of current electricity prices to current prices and expected prices of solar panels. It suggests that it's simply becoming profitable. Why do you have problems with profitable and clean industries?

Edited September 28, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Phi for All]

That is the usual slur I get, but I have no desire to cull humans. I am refering to fertility control, perferably voluntary but involuntary if necessary. And this is obviously the reason behind your eternal technology optimism, i.e. because you wish to avoid at all costs facing the fundamental problem of excess humans and the ethically difficult questions that arise from it.

If population control becomes necessary, I have no ethical problems with a voluntary program. It's easy for me, I've had my one child. An involuntary program is different. I'd have to face that in a context that doesn't exist right now.

 

 

What is scientifically possible is meaningless on its own with respect to energy. To be a useful technological solution it must also be economically viable on a large scale. The resources required must be common, widely available and easy to extract and process. Which means that the technological solution will be cheap and available to most humans.

 

Solar panels are not cheap - the silicon and metals required to produce are very energy intensive to extract even if they are common resources. With fossil fuel production set to decline in the coming decades, solar panels will increase in cost rather than decrease.

Your arguments are like those of a creationist who constantly quotes Darwin. They don't reflect the reality of the times. You complain that current technology won't be enough for the future, arguments usually made by someone with an agenda who needs to win an argument at all costs.

 

On the other hand it is very easy to plant a canola crop and extract the oil from the seeds to use as diesel fuel. If necessary it can be done with low technology, including beasts of burdon. But then you run into the problem of it competing with food production for 7 billion, and counting, humans. So eve here we cannot escape the reality that we must reduce our numbers in combination with any renewable energy strategies

So we use hemp seed oil to save the food crops. Diesel is a good transition from IC engines to the next generation. So once again, your need for population control may be a bit exaggerated and premature. Not to say it will never be necessary, for now the need is for renewable energy.

 

 

We have no choice. Massive population reduction will occur whether we want it or not. They only choice we have is how that will occur.

Through a massive program of fertility reduction, voluntary or involuntary. Or through war, famine, disease and genocide.

 

 

Switching to renwables alone will not save us. With our current numbers we can never be free of the need to burn oil and coal even if we start a massive conversion to solar and wind energy. They will never provide the same amount of surplus energy as fossil fuels currently do. Therefore, regardless of a landscape filled with solar voltaics and wind turbines, or civilisation will still collapse as oil and coal production decline.

 

If we combine renewable energy strategies with depopulation then our civilisation might have some chance.

We do have choices. Lots of them. Start another thread to talk about alternatives to forced population control.

 

I stand by that comment Phi. An Israeli critic of Israeli foreign policy once said that Israelis/Jews have internalised their holocaust victimhood so that they can no longer see that, in some cases, they are visiting upon the Palestinians the same sorts of attrocities that were visited upon them by the Nazis. I believe that many advocates of technology have gotten themselves into a similar state of mind where they just cannot conceive any notion that humans and our civilisation are not protected from all things bad - technology will always provide an answer.

Godwin's Law?! Is there any depth to which you will not sink? Given the arguments I've made, this is a pathetic rebuttal and you've proven beyond a doubt that there is some special agenda you are hyping.

 

 

Scientifically speaking I am arguing that renewable energy technology cannot be implemented on the scale required to provide an equivalent amount of energy to what fossil fuels currently provide all 7 billion of us with.

 

I am arguing, on a scientific basis, that renewable energy strategies must go hand in hand with depopulation. I am arguing that depopulation is not optional but absolutely required in order to make renewable energy a viable alternative.

Let's see some evidence for this "absolutely required" necessity.

 

We could start with the figures on that website I found that calculated we would need an area the size of Malaysia packed with solar voltaics in order to replace the US's current annual consumption of oil energy.

 

Then we could factor in the maintenance and replacement requirements for this along with need to expand it as the global population and energy demand grows.

 

We could figure out how many additional tonnes of aluminium, silicon and steel we would need to produce this array and over what time period.

 

We could figure out how much ongoing additional tonnes of aluminium, silicon and steel will be needed in order to maintain it and to expand it.

 

We could calculate the amount of energy that will be required to do all this and over what time period and compare it to the predictions of future oil production and the amount of energy that will provide over a given time period.

 

I don't have all these figure at hand but I am sure we could both come up with some rough estimates.

This is the last entry I'll make responding to your claims, Greg Boyles. I find your arguments weak, you can't seem to remember when you've been proven wrong and you use logical fallacies to the point of distraction. You aren't worth the time it takes to keep re-rebutting you.

 

First, again, your "Malaysia claim" exaggerates the area required by a whole order of magnitude, as swansont has told you now in two different threads.

 

Second, again, you forget that your equations are based on future population numbers but use current solar panel numbers. This is not only a basic mistake in math; it proves that you are pushing an agenda steeped in deception. This has been pointed out to you numerous times but you keep doing it.

 

Third, I'd like to point out that some of the most hopeful new technology uses quantum dots to drastically reduce the surface area required for solar cells. It even increases the output. And it's main problem right now, releasing the electrons before they dissipate, seems solvable with materials as common as copper. There is even hopes that quantum dot augmented solar cells could be formed on thin sheets so they could be placed virtually anywhere. I bring this up to show that area required as well as output are being addressed now that the cost of oil has made it imperative to find alternatives.

 

We've relied on oil for a long time. Now it's evident that we'll have to replace that dependence with a variety of alternatives and we have a great opportunity to invest in some that don't create the kind of pollution that oil has. It will be difficult but it will have its transition periods. We'll make mistakes and we'll learn. That's science and that's life. We just need to ignore those who pretend to heed reality but are, in fact, heeding some special interest. It's easy to spot these people; when you break down their arguments, you find a lot of obfuscation and logical fallacies, and they tend to forget facts in favor of rhetoric.

[JohnB]

I'd just like to point out to non australian readers that the energy debate down here is politically scewed. Two of our major parties flatly refuse to consider the nuclear option as part of our energy future, no way, no how, never.

 

Thus we are in the insane position that the party with the balance of power in Parliment wants us to stop using coal and oil and replace our electricity generators with something else. As I said nukes are off the table, they support "clean" hydro power power but demand that no new dams be built, they support clean solar power but demand an end to sand mining for the silicon to make the panels and they like clean wind power unless it effects bird migration, clutters the landscape, is in or near State forests and National Parks or encourages China to continue ecologically unsound manufacturing practices. Wave and tidal power pose obvious threats to dugongs, fish and dolphins and are also not favoured.

 

This is the political reality that forms the background to all Australian energy debates.

 

The next election cannot come soon enough.

[Phi for All]

I'd just like to point out to non australian readers that the energy debate down here is politically scewed. Two of our major parties flatly refuse to consider the nuclear option as part of our energy future, no way, no how, never.

 

Thus we are in the insane position that the party with the balance of power in Parliment wants us to stop using coal and oil and replace our electricity generators with something else. As I said nukes are off the table, they support "clean" hydro power power but demand that no new dams be built, they support clean solar power but demand an end to sand mining for the silicon to make the panels and they like clean wind power unless it effects bird migration, clutters the landscape, is in or near State forests and National Parks or encourages China to continue ecologically unsound manufacturing practices. Wave and tidal power pose obvious threats to dugongs, fish and dolphins and are also not favoured.

 

This is the political reality that forms the background to all Australian energy debates.

 

The next election cannot come soon enough.

Pixie dust is renewable, if you have faith and trust.

 

Politicians are unfathomable at times. At least in the US it seems obvious they are representing the oil interests that really want the profits associated with high demand and low supply (especially when they are selling oil produced back when the prices were much lower). I don't know what to think about your pols, JohnB. Are they going to come up with something new? Why don't you guys start the space-based solar race?

[JohnB]

Why don't you guys start the space-based solar race?

 

Phi, this is something that almost brings me to tears. Everybody knows that the Russians were first with Sputnik and the Americans second with Vanguard. Very few realise that this little nation in the South were the third in space, not the Brits, or the French or the Chinese, but Australia. We've had a fully functional and easily expandable launch facility since the 50s and all we've done is sit around and scratch our balls.

 

Some 20 years ago the idea was put forward for a spaceport in Queensland. Being on the tropic it offers great advantages to other nations. A launch from here would be some 30% more efficient for the russians for a start. We are a high tech nation with a stable political climate and heaps of room and we thought that getting a slice of the space action (how many hundreds of billions of dollars per year are launches worth?) would be a great idea. The Greens screamed blue, bloody murder at the idea, every environmentalist was against it and it got stopped.

 

The same people are against space based solar arrays on the grounds that the downlink, which is usually described as a tight beam microwave transmission might be used as a weapon. These people know nothing about technology and care even less. They are anti west and anti development. The deputy leader of the Greens was once a member of the Australian Communist Party, when the excesses of the soviets became too much for even the ACP to bear and they broke with Moscow, this woman and others broke from the ACP to form the Australian Socialist Party to reaffirm their allegience to Moscow. With the fall of the soviet union in 1990 she joined the Greens. The ASP used to hold rallies in support of the Kymer Rouge and Pol Pot. Never once has this person admitted in word or deed that her hard line Stalinist beliefs were in any way misguided or wrong.

 

This is the mentality of person that we are dealing with. Prior to the last election they hadn't shown their true colours and when called "Watermelons" this was spun as "right wing fanaticism" that should be ignored and so they garnered enough votes to gain the balance of power. Since then many have seen what they really are and after the next election the Green Movement in Australia will be relegated to the wastelands. Unfortunately they can do a lot of damage before that time comes.

 

But what can you do with people who on the one hand oppose any new dams for drinking water for a growing population and at the same time believe we should "16.prepare contingency plans for possible large scale humanitarian migration as a result of climate change."

 

I especially like this one; "16.promote the development of non-reactor technologies for the production of radioisotopes for medical and scientific purposes." A non nuclear method of creating radioactive isotopes? This I have just got to see.

 

They say they believe in free press and free speech, yet questions like "How are you going to fund your programs?" are deemed hostile and worthy of an enquiry into the media with a possible view to licencing journalists and newspapers. A licence that can be revoked by a government authority at any time if the "content" is deemed "unsuitable". I think that says it all about what they really believe.

 

However, we will survive this. The left and especially the green left are being smashed at every poll, given another 18 months or so and there won't be a left leaning government in the nation. I expect it to be at least 10 years before the left recovers down here. If the moderate left, the ALP, dumps the chardonnay socialist set and starts listening to it's traditional voter base rather than the party hacks and sociologists then they will come back much faster which I believe is a good thing.

Edited October 3, 2011 by JohnB

[swansont]

I especially like this one; "16.promote the development of non-reactor technologies for the production of radioisotopes for medical and scientific purposes." A non nuclear method of creating radioactive isotopes? This I have just got to see.

Particle accelerators.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36822

[Phi for All]

Phi, this is something that almost brings me to tears. Everybody knows that the Russians were first with Sputnik and the Americans second with Vanguard. Very few realise that this little nation in the South were the third in space, not the Brits, or the French or the Chinese, but Australia. We've had a fully functional and easily expandable launch facility since the 50s and all we've done is sit around and scratch our balls.

 

Some 20 years ago the idea was put forward for a spaceport in Queensland. Being on the tropic it offers great advantages to other nations. A launch from here would be some 30% more efficient for the russians for a start. We are a high tech nation with a stable political climate and heaps of room and we thought that getting a slice of the space action (how many hundreds of billions of dollars per year are launches worth?) would be a great idea. The Greens screamed blue, bloody murder at the idea, every environmentalist was against it and it got stopped.

Very disappointing. I was hoping an uber-friendly country like Oz would make the initial push towards space-based solar so the US would be motivated in a productive way, rather than the motivation we'd have if China or Russia were to do it.

 

Perhaps I'm overconfident, but SBS seems like it would remove most of the "resource by conquest" motives that seem to be a hallmark of fossil fuels. I'm sure there will be concerns over who has tight beam microwave transmitters deployed in space, but I think a country would be unlikely to risk having a major source of energy shot down because they used it in a hostile fashion. I'm sure one of the first requirements would be a way to tell if someone had re-targeted their transmitter away from its appointed receiver.

 

However, we will survive this. The left and especially the green left are being smashed at every poll, given another 18 months or so and there won't be a left leaning government in the nation. I expect it to be at least 10 years before the left recovers down here. If the moderate left, the ALP, dumps the chardonnay socialist set and starts listening to it's traditional voter base rather than the party hacks and sociologists then they will come back much faster which I believe is a good thing.

Well, I hope you don't go too far the other way. It sounds like your green left has a real problem with unrealistic expectations, but you don't need a Tea Party either.

 

This is not a time for any country to be misguided, near-sighted and uninformed.

 

Particle accelerators.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36822

It doesn't sound like an efficient alternative, but at least a particle accelerator could never be used as a weapon.