So, how bad was it where you live? What was it like? — Bitter Crank

Nothing much happened here, the storm went around us. A slight change in path would have changed that. We're in the middle of the penisula, so no storm surge etc, but if this one had headed our way it wouldn't have been fun. Thanks for asking!

That's the mismanagement you identify, but attribute - incorrectly, to the nature of science and technology itself. — 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.

The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power.

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.

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.

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

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.

Let me give a historical example: whale oil.

Early industrial societies used whale oil for oil lamps, lubrication, soap, margarine etc. During the 19th Century this lead nearly to the extinction of whales in the seas and fewer whales meant that the rise the price of whale oil went up. By technological advances the role of whale oil was taken over by the modern petroleum industry and also vegetable oils, which could provide far more oil with a far cheaper price than the whaling industry could. Kerosene and petroleum were far more reliable and became more popular than whale oil and basically could provide energy to the combustion engine revolution, which never could be supplied by whaling. And the whales? Their numbers actually bounced back by an unintensional act of environmental protection by the World's most famous vegetarian: Adolf Hitler. By starting WW2 and by unleashing the German Kriegsmarien in an all-out war on the Atlantic, Hitler (and the Japanese) unintensionally saved the whales as this stopped whaling for a few years and gave the whales a well needed chance rebound in numbers even before banning of whaling was introduced. That a lot of countries have banned whaling simply shows the marginal importance of whale oil and whale meat in these countries.

Hence when we try to make up legislation and create complex mechanisms which the industry and the consumer has to adapt to, perhaps we should first look at how we can steer market forces in the right direction that they themselves can make the change. And this steering can be done by technical innovation. Oil companies do understand that they are in the energy business and if fossil fuels cannot compete with other energy sources, that's it. Then there simply is no future for them in the oil and coal business. If they don't make the change, they'll go the path as Kodak. Hence oil companies can even themselves make the hop to alternative energies. They have already changed from the conventional oil fields for example to shale oil, which basically is a totally different operation. Let's not forget that Peak Conventional Oil has already happened.

Above all, once there are far cheaper energy sources than fossil fuels and the recycling of plastics is done on a massive scale, then indeed can the last remnants of fossil fuel reserves be left underground. Then the eco-friendly policy is quite easy to adapt.

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

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.

The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power. — Jake

That certainly can be said about human beings - and how they handle power.

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

Because of what else can be said about the nature of science - and how therefore it should be employed, that doesn't necessarily follow. 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. Employing hugely powerful technologies with no regard to the understanding of reality that provided for them is grossly irresponsible. But it's something people are entirely unaware of - and so, it's not blameworthy irresponsibility. Forgive them for they know not what they do. It's a mistake - and a fairly understandable one at that.

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

You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; which arguably, is fantastic for us - because, we can learn the lesson of our error, and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology - to solving the problems we've created charting a course - probably not more than a few degrees off true north, over a very long time.

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

I've been attempting to say much more on this topic in the other thread, or we could do it here, either is fine.

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?

You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; — karl stone

Ok, yes, it's a philosophical problem, not a science problem. Science is just a machine which does it's job well. It's our relationship with science which is the problem.

and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology — karl stone

What does this mean? My understanding of "scientifically advised" is that we should learn as much as possible, that is, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

Well, I can't blame you for not replying. Thanks Jake. Good chat. Thanks everyone. I'm going to leave it there.

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

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.

Not necessarily. — karl stone

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.

Spot the horse!
Spot the tanks!



How many horses did the Wehrmacht lose in Operation Barabarosa? 179,000. How many horses did the USSR and Reich III use during WWII? About 6,000,000.

Here's a mule helping a US soldier in northern Burma, Nov. 17. 1944



Trains, for instance, didn't replace horses. Trains made horses critically important for short distance hauling to and from the railroad--up until trucks replaced them by 1920 (later in agricultural regions).

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.

Well, I can't blame you for not replying. — karl stone

Huh?

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?

@karl stone 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.

Sorry for not responding earlier, it's been a busy few days...

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

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. But I have my doubts that markets would put the science above the profit motive. They typically don't make any value judgements 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.

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.

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

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? Or am I missing something?

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

I haven't made that argument. I have argued for the necessity of changing that equation, and described a possibly possible means to do so. I have argued that we can keep fossil fuels in the ground at zero sum cost by mortgaging them to the world. I hypothesize that by mortgaging fossil fuels - the world would have the debt in one hand and the money in the other - and it would therefore be a zero total cost.
Current interests are returned at a respectable level, the money is created to apply renewable energy technology, and the planet is saved! Hurrah!

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

If you google the phrase "feduciary duty to maximize shareholder value" the picture is mixed. Some say it's a myth. I don't know, but I suspect it would be legally problematic. Assuming at least it describes the coincidence of interests between investors and traders - I accept that is how the market works, but would point to the trap this makes of fossil fuels. They have enormous value - there's a powerful coincidence of interests, if not an actual legal obligation to liberate. The single investor in the market might choose to make an ethical stand, but that does not imply money will not find the opportunity. The only difference will be between who does what - not what is done.

I do not accept the idea of consumer sovereignty on the grounds of cognitive overload. It's not the individual's responsibility to know, and by consumer choice, decide how things are produced. Consumers are neither qualified nor responsible. As an example, since the climate report was published, there's a rash of video blogs on how veganism can save the world. Individual responsibility. Instead of governmental and corporate responsibility. So they can keep pumping the black gold while I'm filling up on lentils? Another example - I've got six different colored bins in front of my house - and there's morons and criminals sitting idle as I read in the newspaper, (red bin) despite my best efforts most of it goes to landfill anyway. There are things that need doing only government and industry can do.

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

So your answer is the same - hope the consumer makes ethical rather than price point choices, tax industry into submission, bankruptcy and consolidation, and pray science provides another miracle! Isn't that how we got here? The solution in my view is responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality at the point of production, not the point of sale. What do I know about how anything's made? And furthermore, I paid my money for a good or a service. I don't want to be inducted into the supply chain as an adviser or a busboy.

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

Yes. A reasonable assumption in my view. The main energy cost is concrete, both the production of cement, a massively energy intensive industry, and transport of enormous mass by fossil fuel powered vehicles. There's also steel production and delivery. And that's not even counting the mini-fridge in the workman's cabin! That's so old it doesn't even have a sticker indicating its energy rating!

Or am I missing something? — ChatteringMonkey

"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).

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?

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!

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

Well, I could say a lot more about my approach too - but I'm not getting that you've fully come to grips with it. Or seek to come to grips with it! How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? We could talk about your thing exclusively, perhaps. Is there a name, or particular phrase - that sums up your approach?

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

Let's get your thing down first, because your insistence I don't understand, stands as an obstacle to explaining how your conclusions are subsumed under my paradigm.

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

The short answers are transmission loss over distance, particularly at lower voltages, the night-time problem - and that, powering national grids would only solve that one problem. The approach I've described - solar panels floating on the ocean's surface, making hydrogen fuel and fresh water from sunlight and sea water, solves all those, and a number of other problems at the same time.

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

And what's more, you can't eat a tank!

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

It wasn't actually the first computer, but that's another debate - one that ultimately resolves to the question of how one defines a computer. Interesting topic, but a discussion for later perhaps. Did you know the genius and national hero who designed his difference engine at Bletchely Park, Alan Turing, was hounded to suicide by the government for being gay? Tragic story. Another other subject.

I cannot however, accept this supports your conclusion that necessarily, it takes 50 years for innovation to take hold. Not least because there's a long history of computing machines before Turing. (Google Charles Babbage for instance.) Without descending too far into that argument, I'd suggest that you mistake the research and development time of various levels of technology, for the period over which acceptance of innovation takes place. The invention of the transistor was necessary to make home computing possible. It doesn't take 50 years once the technology exists.

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

Ahhh, the Malthusians - they are persistently gloomy. Thomas Robert Malthus FRS was an English cleric and scholar, influential in the fields of political economy and demography. 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. He predicted this would inevitably lead to mass starvation. He was wrong. Clearly, people are problem solvers. They multiply resources with knowledge and technological innovation. I don't need to read Knustler's book to know he's wrong. I can see the arithmetic of his argument a mile away - and while seemingly logical, it just doesn't model reality.

"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

Lot of concrete in a nuclear power station.

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

Covering the oceans completely would be disastrous - if it were even possible. The oceans are 7/10ths of the world's surface - so you'd pretty much have to scrape everything from every landmass to do it. I'm only suggesting a few thousand square kilometers. That's huge, but in terms of the size of the oceans - it's like putting a postage stamp in a football stadium, and you're worried about how the grass will grow?
There's very little life mid ocean anyway - most oceanic life lives on the continental shelves where there's nutrients washed into the sea. Mid ocean is a veritable desert.

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.

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

Concise is better. Thanks. Fossil fuels ubiquitous position in the energy market relative to renewables makes this an inherently unjust calculus. I was asked - what the range of a hydrogen powered vehicle was, for example. But petroleum powered engines have been in continuous development for over a hundred years. It's rather the same with renewables. Being applied in a piecemeal fashion at the nexus of guilt and economic self interest is stunting the technology. Renewable energy technology doesn't need to be subsidized - it needs to be funded. An infrastructure that needs to be built like the rail network, or the canals, or the Romans and their roads. Only then will it be a fair comparison.

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

Yes, I know who Malthus was, and that his predictions did not pan out. However, I didn't reference Malthus, and neither did Kunstler. Our situation today isn't a Malthusian problem. Old Thomas has become a stumbling block which we trip over. People in general fall somewhere on the spectrum of optimism and pessimism. Whether their location makes sense or not doesn't seem to have any influence on their thinking.

As I indicated above, I'm favorably disposed towards techno-fixes when, and if, they are appropriate, and when and if they have a good chance of achieving the desired ends. The problem we face with global warming isn't malthusian. Had Malthus had the insight to see that the industrial revolution going on around him would eventually lead to serious problems, he would rank up there with Newton. Someone (I forget, don't know where the reference is) may have detected signs of climate change roughly a century ago, but their observation was isolated, and could not be fit into a pattern at that time.

The problem is CO2, methane, and some other heat trapping gases. They are in the atmosphere now, and won't disappear tomorrow. The solution lies in changing human behavior. Unfortunately, achieving major shifts in human behavior and thinking is much more difficult than turning an air craft carrier or the largest oil tankers around on a dime.

Were we able to change our thinking, our cultures, our behaviors on a dime; make industrial policy based on subtle shifts in the climate 50 years ago; shift to public transit away from private autos and air travel; live much more simply; become vegetarians; and so on and so forth, we could have prevented or solved the problem decades before it became critical, we'd be in good shape now. Alas...

The best we can do at this point is mediate the coming disaster as much as we are able (however much or little that turns out to be). Que será, será.

Just a few things I'd like to drop into this conversation.

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.

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.

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 .

Of course, as the OP mentions and thread has discussed, the real problem is the getting all the energy to make hydrogen or whatever your energy carrier is. With the energy problem solved you can then solve water, heating in winter, running an industrial base, space travel, or any other problem on the table.

When you look closer at this problem, it's easy to solve technologically. As Bittercrank points out in the previous post, these problems were solvable decades ago through technological and lifestyle changes. The core of the problem is this pesky western lifestyle.

The amounts of energy consumed by the typical western lifestyle (and that must continuously grow in energy and resource consumption!) is just so enormous that it's simply impractical to live the western lifestyle if convenient energy and minerals are not simply lying in the ground to be dug or pumped out. But if you get rid of waste you get rid or (most) mining, (most) personal large vehicle transport, (most) road construction and maintenance, (most) meat consumption, (most) of suburbia, (most) of the airplane transport and (most) industrial mono-culture farming as (most) people just have a garden and community farm they participate in on the same land area they are currently wasting on lawns and roads (solving many problems). Sure, some of all these things can make sense when needed, but if you look at the numbers there's simply no economic reason to make solar power to make jet fuel to fly people to New Zealand to visit the sets of the Lord of the Rings; so, if you mandated a renewable jet-fuel (through a fossil tax internalizing the true cost of fossil jet fuel into it's price) ... only actually useful flying would tend get done, which if you think about is a very small amount. Likewise, you could mandate less meat consumption overnight (i.e. again, internalizing the real cost into the price people pay for meat) and so people could still eat meat ... they'd just eat a lot less. And so on for every climate or otherwise environmental problem. Nearly every problem can be solved essentially overnight by internalizing it's real cost, people would consume it less or organize their lives to do things for themselves as it just saves too much money not to do it (like a personal garden). Of course, what the true cost is can be debated, but assuming we get it right, then by definition the problem is solved through internalizing the true cost.

What happens the next day? All these industries contract, the capitalist system is thrown into chaos, people's identifies as car riding, suburban house owning, rapacious meat eaters with a job in one of these industries that fly across the globe for a few selfies ... gone. This is the core of the ecological problem and why no politician has done anything about it. Huge push back from existing entrenched industries on one side and on the other identity crisis for a large part of their constituents.

Why (should have) a politician do something given the social upheaval it implies? Because the problems don't go away, and a bunch of social upheaval is far better to live through than the collapse of ecosystems and prolonged global conflicts it will induce (is inducing) and both these factors simply getting continuously worse and worse over time (not some switch that we then adapt to).

The light at the end of the mine shaft is that the system isn't sustainable and so will end.

How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? — karl stone

1) What is your paradigm exactly? It sounds like a science worshiping religion to me, something about how everyone will somehow magically become rational? If you want me to get it, please be as specific as possible.

2) I get that you want to mortgage oil in the ground, but I still don't get how that works.

3) I get that you want to put masses of solar panels on the ocean, but I don't get how that works either.

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.

I'm not at all sure it does. I can really only describe the basic idea as well as I'm able and leave it to people more clever and credible than me.

I'm a little more confident that the technology I described would work. It could be done, and I set out to prove in principle that it could. Similarly however, there are people cleverer and more credible that I am. Is it really my place to dictate in detail how such an audacious broad brush stroke idea would be carried out in practice? Surely that would be for people to work out among themselves. It's their stuff!

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

I read somewhere it's an indirect greenhouse gas - prolonging the lifetime of other pollutants in the atmosphere, which presumably would be less of a problem over time if we were drastically reducing fossil fuel use. The other issues are matters of materials science. I do not concede it's not possible. We have tried neither at this, nor a wide range of possible alternatives. Even if a hydrogen internal combustion engine HICE were not feasible to mass produce, though BMW have produced the Hydrogen 7 and leased them to prominent figures, there's still hydrogen as a store of energy to be burnt in power stations, cement factories, steel mills and so forth.

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

I watched a video recently on fuel produced from captured carbon, and I would have to admit the incredible advantage of being ready for the tank of already existing vehicles. But at best it's a carbon neutral process - requiring a vast amounts of energy from renewable sources. to produce fuel that when burnt returns the captured carbon to the atmosphere. Is that good? What about the opportunity cost of that renewable energy in terms of other fuels burnt instead?

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

The question is where electricity is produced, and then how energy is stored and transported. Solar panels in deserts for example seem like a great idea until you consider transmission loss. Solar panels close to zones of industry and habitation occupy valuable real estate. Putting solar panels at sea, and using electricity and sea water to produce hydrogen as a store of energy, solves a lot of problems with resources that are available.

I read the rest and simply disagree that would be the implication.

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

Here is your problem:

You are assuming that "the truth" is crisply, concisely, and clearly stated in clean Helvetica text and that the upshot of seeing the truth is equally obvious. That's not the way truth usually appears. More likely than not it will be laboriously spelled out in obscure language and printed in some barely readable obscure font (figuratively speaking, you understand).

Then one has to figure out how to implement the truth that one has understood (correctly or not).

We already send electricity all over the place. Yes, there are some losses during transmission. Electricity made by Manitoba Hydro may end up turning motors in St. Louis Missouri, not just in Winnipeg.

The value of electricity makes almost any location cost effective. Put a solar farm on that corn field. The electricity will be worth far more than the corn. A wind turbine doesn't take up much space on the ground, maybe 400 square feet. There is nothing you can grow on 400 sq. ft. worth as much as the electricity produced from that one turbine-bearing mast.

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

No offense, but I understand that this is just too vague to keep my interest. Let's try again in another thread, and thanks for the chat.