What does that mean in practical terms? Is it not just a trendy soundbite that has no meaningful implications? — karl stone
I suggest we can mortgage fossil fuels while still in the ground, and use that money to apply sustainable energy technology. I also suggest floating solar panels at the equator, producing hydrogen fuel - did you read the OP? Solar panels would not provide electricity directly. Hydrogen fuel would be burnt in power stations, and electricity transmitted through existing grids. Thus, nighttime etc isn't an issue. — karl stone
Oh super - you had a thought. I've been thinking about this for many, many years, but you think your off the cuff impressions are more likely to be true? Not! Did you know for example, that a nuclear power station requires about half the energy it will ever produce in the construction phase alone - and that's to say nothing of the carbon cost of managing nuclear waste forever afterward? — karl stone
According to the latest climate report from the UN, we have even less time to do something "to save the world" than we thought: 12 years... — Bitter Crank
Of course we can cut CO2 emissions to practically zero in 12 years (or say 24). When Japan, Germany, Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States mobilized for WWII, heaven and earth were moved. Tremendous productive forces were employed to build the capacity to wage massive war. We can do it again for CO2 reduction. — Bitter Crank
How?
Convert private auto manufacture to mass transit production.
Start a crash wind turbine and solar cell production program; install widely.
Build large energy storage batteries.
Immediately reduce consumption of goods which are not merely unnecessary, but are useless.
Reorganize life for need rather than profit.
Obviously: end coal and petroleum production. — Bitter Crank
It can be done, but it will almost certainly NOT be done because the short-term costs of saving the planet will cost the rich more money than they can stand losing. It will be necessary to liquidate the wealth of the richest 1%. (Mind, that is liquidate the wealth -- not liquidate the wealthy. Liquidating the wealthy gets too much bad PR.) — Bitter Crank
Mass mobilization, causally speaking, requires a conjunction of opportunities which I feel is not within the reach of many of us. Add to that the fact that most people with the right number of audience aren't bothered by environmental issues. I'm talking about celebrities.
So, it seems to me, those of us who are concerned about the world are left with no choice but to do our stuff at a much lower social stratum e.g. we can raise the awareness of our family or friends or community. We then hope that our efforts spread out from their. — TheMadFool
Yeah my bad, I read the hydrogen part, but didn't think about it writing my post. It was more an example of the type of questions I would have. — ChatteringMonkey
I guess the main issue then might be the cost and efficiency of producing hydrogen. I allways hear that it's not particulary energy efficient, but i'm no expert so... — ChatteringMonkey
The mortgages and the hydrogen production are two seperate things it seems to me, as mortgages can be used to finance whatever renewable energy source. And the market would presumably favor the one that cost the least. — ChatteringMonkey
Though I don't claim to be an expert, I did know that the construction costs were high, and I also know that the production cost itself of nuclear energy are very low. My point was only that the discussion seems more ideological than rational concerning nuclear energy, and that if needed, we should choose nuclear power rather then let CO2 levels rise... until we figure out how to run everything on renewables. But maybe we can allready. — ChatteringMonkey
Hi again Karl,
Well, obviously we're not opposed to clean energy and abundant fresh water. If we confine your post to a purely technical analysis of how to solve purely technical problems, your ideas may be worth considering. I don't really feel qualified to analyze your technical ideas, but they are interesting to examine. — Jake
I would however decline your larger claim that these technical fixes will "save the world". — Jake
We tried to "save the world" by implementing the industrial revolution, and what we accomplished was to replace one set of problems with another set of problems that are arguably larger. We tried to "save the world" with the Manhattan project, and what we accomplished was to put human civilization less than an hour away from destruction in every moment of every day. — Jake
You're trying to apply technical fixes to a problem which is not fundamentally technical. The real problem can be described with a single four letter word. More. — Jake
What the evidence shows is that whatever technical powers we develop we will relentlessly push the envelope in a reckless manner in the endless quest for more, more, and more. And by doing so we continue a process of giving ourselves more power than we can successfully manage. — Jake
Your ideas might give us some breathing room, but if successful they just kick the can down the road a little bit and we'll soon find ourselves once again up against the wall. As example, endless free clean energy would result in us burning through other finite resources at an accelerated rate. The problem gets moved from one box to another box, but the real problem doesn't get addressed, or solved. — Jake
It appears that, like most of our culture, you've bought in to the science "religion" which has as many or more problems than regular religion. — Jake
Caught by spam filter - restored by mods. Thanks mods! — karl stone
but in my view, a war for survival is not the way to go. — karl stone
If we lose our freedom we will never get it back — karl stone
What you seem to be describing here is a centrally planned economy, and that has failed again and again to deliver for people and the planet. — karl stone
Perhaps start with repealing Citizens United vs FEC?If the US is going to make it's critical reduction in CO2 and other green house gas emissions, it will be because the central government and centralized corporate powers decided to do it. — Bitter Crank
but in my view, a war for survival is not the way to go.
— karl stone
Hmmm, Odd. If survival is the goal, and there is a real threat to survival, then why wouldn't an all-out effect be the way to go?
If we lose our freedom we will never get it back
— karl stone — Bitter Crank
Throughout American history, "freedom" has always been somewhat illusory. That's probably true everywhere, and it is certainly true here. Deviation from the norm, or clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the norm, usually meant sustained hostility. Luckily for many dissenters of various kinds, there was always frontier territory where one could go, at least until the frontier came to an end in the latter 19th century. Strong challenges to the status quo, like unionism, socialism, Mormonism, abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights for blacks, and so on have been intensely resisted by the central authorities. — Bitter Crank
If the US is going to make it's critical reduction in CO2 and other green house gas emissions, it will be because the central government and centralized corporate powers decided to do it. — Bitter Crank
Here's a new report on food and warming, that suggests we need to at least cut back on the meat.
If you don't have time for the academic report, here's the news version. — unenlightened
I just needed to prove that sustainability was technologically possible - and it is. — karl stone
I know. I read your other thread. Interesting thesis. I'm sorry I haven't replied on your thread yet, but I'm hitting this hard - here and elsewhere right now. I get it. — karl stone
...the solution I devised is very simple, and entirely consistent with the principles of our economic system. Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology. — karl stone
I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship, or pumped through pipelines to shore. The geographical area available at sea is incredibly vast, and effectively shading the ocean, with thousands of square kilometers of solar panels would also help combat global warming. — karl stone
No worries on replying, there is no obligation. But sorry, no, you don't get it. Not yet anyway. That's completely normal, especially for science worshipers, no matter how many PhDs they have. — Jake
I think I need more discussion of this, which seems central to your plan. I read your answer to SSU, but don't get it. Or maybe you don't get it either? Not sure. Try again if you want. — Jake
Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. Storms on the ocean are, you know, kinda common. Where exactly do we put the panels that won't experience storms? — Jake
I really do understand your argument. You believe any technology we invent to solve one problem, necessarily causes other problems, and perhaps, bigger problems. Is that not it? — karl stone
I do not accept that argument because, I believe, you assume that the application of technology we have is a rational and natural course of events, for a world blind to that problem.
What I'm saying is that the application of technology is perverse - and that the problem you describe is inherent to this perversion of science and technology. But science and technology is not correctly applied.
This perversion stems from the suppression of science as truth from the 1630's, and the subsequent use of science as a tool for the pursuit of ideological power and profit. — karl stone
The technology exists - the need to apply it is clear. So why is it not applied? — karl stone
I don't know what you don't get about mortgaging an asset. — karl stone
One word: submersible! — karl stone
Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. To quickly summarize my thesis is that scientific progress if pursued without limits will inevitably produce powers which we can't successfully manage. Evidence, we currently have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, hardly a case of successful management. — Jake
The technology exists - the need to apply it is clear. So why is it not applied?
— karl stone
Well, we've not yet resolved key problems with your proposal, as I understand it so far. How do we derive commercial value from petroleum in the ground which forever remains in the ground? How do we put mass solar panels on an ocean subject to repeated storms. Maybe the technology has not been applied simply because it wouldn't work as you describe it? — Jake
Maybe that would work. If the framework on which the solar panels were mounted were sufficiently strong and rigid, it could probably be submerged without being damaged by wave action on the bottom. Or, one would float the panels on small lakes or lagoons where wind wouldn't generate huge waves. Floating panels should be look at as a specialty application.
Wind turbines, however, can be located off shore. But they have to be off a shore that gets enough wind. In Minnesota, at least, wind is providing a substantial share of electrical energy. States from MN to TX down the center of the continent generally have good wind. Texas is a leader in wind energy -- surprising, even though there is an exceptionally large amount of hot air in TX. — Bitter Crank
One major problem that is not amenable to a technical solution is population. Not if we want to remain civilized, anyway.
7 billion plus people have the capacity to swamp improvements in food production and fresh water supply by merely continuing to reproduce at moderate levels. What we need to do, in the midterm and long term is reduce the number of people on the planet. That means population attrition, not just in Europe or Japan, but everywhere. — Bitter Crank
Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. — Jake
Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. — Jake
I don't know if you were aware, but long established research shows that improving living conditions tends to reduce family size. — karl stone
Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. — Jake
...might all join hands and dance around the maypole to the strains of Simon and Garfunkel's Scarborough Fair. I'm not that naive.) — karl stone
The problem of population, 7-11 billion, is that it is up against an agricultural environment that will be deteriorating, even if we make some progress toward limited CO2/methane/other. Those are:
All the arable land we have is now being used for agriculture. There are no significant idle reserves. (What about northern lands becoming agricultural? The soils that are now very cold or frozen are not, and will not be suitable for agriculture. What about irrigation? All of the fresh water that is suitable for irrigation has been tapped. Drinking water has also passed its peak. The Asian glaciers are shrinking rapidly. In 50 years, the temperature in many agricultural areas will be too hot to work in for much or all of the day. (When the temperature and humidity combined make it impossible to cool off, people start dying from heat.) Fisheries productivity is in decline.
Agriculture, under the best of circumstances, is risky: too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too many insects, not enough bees, plant diseases, soil exhaustion, etc. There is usually enough world production to keep people fed, but an increasingly warm, erratic climate doesn't favor agriculture. Projecting enough production to feed 11 billion ignores erratic and fast climate change.
Not despairing yet? — Bitter Crank
Declining hydrocarbon output: Much of high agricultural productivity depends on cheap, abundant oil and gas for chemicals, fertilizers, and fuel. We are past peak oil. We can not feed 7 billion people, maybe not 5 billion using animal traction, organic farming, and the like. We could do that at maybe 2-3 billion under good conditions. Those days are over.
Getting the population down to 2-3 billion or less will come about if the species crashes. That could happen if global warming becomes too severe in the 22nd century (only 82 years away). — Bitter Crank
I am pessimistic about all techno-fixes. I like techno-fixes. However, it does not appear that the we have the will or the political means to slam the brakes on CO2/methane/other. If we (the whole world) did have the will, the ways, and the means to abruptly cease CO2/methane/other output, we could, perhaps, solve the problem. But we don't. NO country is meeting even the modest targets set recent agreements. — Bitter Crank
Why not? Why are they not?
One reason is that major technological changes (like from horse power to machine power, like telephone, radio, television, railroads, highways, airplanes, medicine, engineering, etc. etc. etc.) require around 40 to 50 years to propagate throughout society. It isn't just behavior change; it's all sorts of changes. We have not committed to abandoning fossil fuels, so the 40-50 year change over hasn't begun. — Bitter Crank
Yes, there are solar panels and windmills here and there. But transportation in the developed world is still predicated on cars and trucks. Heating and cooling still are largely dependent on electricity from fossil fuels. A rising standard of living around the world requires more production of everything, and a lot of waste.
It isn't that I think we can not do anything; theoretically we can. But we run up against time (we waited too long) and material limitations on what is possible in a short period of time, because people generally don't worry about threats unless they are unmistakably visible -- like seeing the tornado about 3 blocks away. That's just the way we are wired. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.