So, how bad was it where you live? What was it like? — Bitter Crank
That's the mismanagement you identify, but attribute - incorrectly, to the nature of science and technology itself. — karl stone
Perhaps the problem is that people simply dismiss the most obvious sources how changes happen: through the market mechanism and through technical development. If we can produce energy far cheaper than we get from fossil fuels, we simply won't use those fuels as we earlier did. It surely isn't a political correct idea, relying on the market, but we should think about it.SSU asked - 'How would they have value if they are not used?'
It's something known as the 'Stranded Asset problem' - and I can't give a definitive answer, but argue that, in acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality as a basis to apply the technology necessary to secure the future, the surety is inherent in the long term viability of civilization. Essentially, sovereign debt owned by the world. There are a great many variables - not least, who gets the money, I don't want to weigh in on. Big can o' worms. — karl stone
The nature of science is to develop knowledge, which typically is then converted in to some form of power, ie. an ability to manipulate the environment. — Jake
The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power. — Jake
Thus, at some point the nature of science and the nature of human beings come in to conflict. Science keeps developing more and more knowledge/power, and at some point reaches and exceeds the limits of the governing mechanism, human beings. — Jake
Your thread argues for the science religion dogma, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That dogma is the cause of the problems you are trying to solve. — Jake
That certainly could be said about the nature of science - and how it is employed in society, but much more might also be said about the nature of science, and I would argue - how therefore, science should be employed in society. — karl stone
Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed. — karl stone
You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; — karl stone
and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology — karl stone
Usually humanity has gotten into trouble when it hasn't had the science and technology to overcome it's problems. "Globalization" has then turned backwards and a highly complex society has turned to a less complex society, which has eradicated whole professions and basically scientific and technological knowledge itself. This can be seen how from Antiquity we got to the Middle Ages. For example Rome got to be as big as it had been only in the 1930's. Or that industrial production came up to the level of Antiquity only in the 17th Century.Your thread argues for the science religion dogma, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That dogma is the cause of the problems you are trying to solve. — Jake
Not necessarily. — karl stone
The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train — karl stone
No, you're right. The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train. There's an energy loss with conversion from electricity to hydrogen fuel, and from hydrogen fuel back into electrical energy - that's not dissimilar to the heat loss from the fire box and boiler of a steam locomotive. However, it's a clean process, and the sun is blazing down upon millions of square miles of ocean anyway. Capturing that sunlight and turning it into fuel made from seawater - effectively negates that thermodynamic inefficiency, like we'd still be using steam trains if we had an infinite amount of coal that didn't harm the environment. — karl stone
Well, arguably, given that applying this technology is premised upon accepting a scientific understanding of reality as authoritative - it follows that the market would put the science before the profit motive. I entirely accept there are experts who know better than me, and while I'd argue for my technological solution relative to others, there are other technologies - and the best scientific and technological advice to the market might not be my advice, in which case - listen to them. — karl stone
The financial cost of building a nuclear power station is not the point. Climate change is the point. Nuclear power produces carbon free electricity, however, because construction requires as much as half the energy it will ever produce - it is only half as carbon neutral as it appears, and that's without taking into account the carbon costs of looking after the nuclear waste forever afterward. — karl stone
I certainly agree that from a scientific point of view it would be preferable to choose the cleaner and renewable energy over the cheapest energy. — ChatteringMonkey
But I have my doubts that markets would put the science above the profit motive. They typically don't make any value judgments aside from the profit motive, right. Because that's what the stockholders want, more return on investment. And you get more profit when you sell more products or services. So the consumer decides in the end, and he typically will favor the cheaper products and services. — ChatteringMonkey
I don't see that dynamic changing any time soon, but one of three things could happen that will make renewable energy more viable economically : 1) the consumer will start to value 'clean and renewable' more as the situation gets more dire 2) governments start imposing more pollution taxes which drives up the price of the old energy sources, and 3) renewable energy becomes cheaper and cheaper in comparison, as technology advances and old energy sources get more expensive because of depletion. — ChatteringMonkey
Right, though there are only carbon costs if we assume that the energy used for construction or looking after the nuclear waste is itself carbon energy? — ChatteringMonkey
Or am I missing something? — ChatteringMonkey
I've been attempting to say much more on this topic in the other thread, or we could do it here, either is fine. — Jake
Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed.
— karl stone
Ok, how does that work exactly? Can you be more specific? — Jake
The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train
— karl stone
Indeed, but if we could build large solar plants in the ocean at the equator, why wouldn't we just run a wire from the complex and plug it into the electrical distribution systems of India, China, SE Asia, Africa, or South America? — Bitter Crank
Take a larger view. in the years of WWII 1939-1945, horses were indispensable. Why? For one, they don't use oil. For two, they are strong. For three, they can be used flexibly. Four, Germany and the USSR still used horses for various purposes in 1938, and horses were part of military planning. — Bitter Crank
The first computer was built in WWII. It took about 40 years for personal computers to make their appearance. By 1995. they were pretty much integrated into business, and people were buying computers for home use. So, about 50 years. — Bitter Crank
Did I recommend this author, this book to you?
Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation by James Howard Kunstler
Kunstler details the nature of the environmental crises. While doing that he also punctures many a delusion about what is possible. For instance: "We'll build huge numbers of windmills and square miles of solar panels." Great idea. But... given that we are past peak oil, what will happen when our million windmills and millions of solar panels wear out? We still have relatively cheap petrochemicals with which to carry out this production. Forty years from now? Sixty? Much less oil available and much more expensive. I am thoroughly enthusiastic about windmills and solar, but a lot of energy is needed to build the steel masts from which the windmills are hung. I assume a fair amount of energy is required to build solar panels too and that they probably don't continue to work forever.
Kunstler's point is that there are no magical solutions to our several interlocked environmental crises. — Bitter Crank
"The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel." wiki
That is to say, cement is produced by driving off CO2 from calcium carbonate (limestone). — unenlightened
In other news, as I tried to indicate earlier, the ocean is not as empty as it looks; covering it with solar cells is probably not as disastrous as covering a rainforest with solar cells, but not that far off. Why is life so complicated? — unenlightened
Summary: One can get a profound change through the market mechanism when a new alternative is cheaper and better to the old one. Yet the typical solution is only to believe in regulation, restrictions and international agreements and not that the free market could (or would) change supply and demand itself. Hopefully I'm not confusing here.I find your post very difficult to respond to. I don;t wish to be rude, but it's so wordy - I can't identify the points you're trying to make. Might I suggest, it's in part a matter of writing style. You seem to go for the stream of consciousness approach. It would be helpful to the reader if you could summarize, then elaborate. Because it's not like you don't pass through some interesting territories on this long rambling journey. I enjoyed reading your post. I just don't know how to respond except to say, that's interesting, thanks! — karl stone
Summary: One can get a profound change through the market mechanism when a new alternative is cheaper and better to the old one. Yet the typical solution is only to believe in regulation, restrictions and international agreements and not that the free market could (or would) change supply and demand itself. Hopefully I'm not confusing here. — ssu
He's famous for pointing out the discrepency between the geometric rate of population growth 2,4,8,16 etc, against the arithmetic rate 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, at which agricultural land could be increased — karl stone
How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? — karl stone
Hydrogen is simply not a good energy carrier for a few reasons. First, it's not a liquid or solid at ambient temperature, which is a big inconvenience. Second, hydrogen is so small it diffuses through most metals causing micro-fractures leading to failure; solving these problems to power a rocket or in industrial processes can be solved ... but scaling to a transport infrastructure this problem is essentially unsolvable. Third liquid hydrogen boils off and easily slips through the tiniest cracks between parts making it extremely difficult to make a hermetic sealed hydrogen system at a lab level and simply impossible at an infrastructure scale. Hydrogen floats to the top of the atmosphere where it acts as a potent green house gas. — boethius
Long story short, if you have a lot of hydrogen you may as well solve all the above problems by reacting with carbon to make hydrocarbons and have all the benefits the energy density of hydrogen without the massive technological hurdles. Since there's excess carbon in the atmosphere it's easy to get to do this and means not only a cheaper infrastructure to build ... but an infrastructure that already exists. — boethius
So the thesis of the OP is essentially correct, there's just no reason to use hydrogen by itself as an energy carrier. And since you'd need to make electricity first to make hydrogen to make hydrocarbons (or whatever analogous process), you may as well use that electricity directly for most transport needs. Electric trains, trams and batteries for personal transport is simply far more efficient if you already have electricity. "Synth-hydro-carb" fuel would still be useful for trucks and lorries and airplanes . — boethius
Had man in a worshipful manner - made it his vocation and duty to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - — karl stone
You've misunderstood. I've said magically becoming rational was the natural course of human affairs, but a course we didn't take. It may seem strange to you to envisage, but then you are not who you might have been. Humankind struggled from animal ignorance into human knowledge over countless generations, and then balked at the prospect of actually knowing what's true. Had man in a worshipful manner - made it his vocation and duty to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - it would be as if a red carpet unfurled at his feet. — karl stone
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.