As you'll recall, we agreed you would need a solar panel 245 times the surface area of a typical container vessel to power a typical container vessel.
Or a very, very long extension cable.
Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
As you'll recall, we agreed you would need a solar panel 245 times the surface area of a typical container vessel to power a typical container vessel.
Or a very, very long extension cable.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Detail in this area is more than half the reason we often fail to see eye to eye.
Some parts of the system can fail quickly, but others can lurch on, and we see that interested parties will not just sit idly by when this stuff starts to happen, they will mess around with stuff.
The question is to what extent they can prop things up, whether parts of the system that can no longer function under the conditions can be swapped out for a different system with approximately equivalent function, stuff like that. I dont claim they have any magic wands, but we have already seen how a dysfunctional system can be propped up for years since the financial crisis erupted into plain view.
Unlike the optimists I do not expect this to be plain sailing, and since even at the best of times the systems fail people of certain countries or economic circumstances in deadly ways, it would not be at all surprising to see such failures at the worst of times.
If we were dealing with a slow decline rate and a slow increase in prices, it would not be hard to imagine the system gradually adjusting, messily at times, but without a complete end to business as usual on every front. Even then there would be a point at which even the basics couldnt be sustained, but perhaps by then the system and priorities would already have morphed enough to cope. Now we arent really expecting this situation, we are expecting more dramatic supply & pricing issues, and price fluctuations we have already seen for years now tend to fit better with this view than with one of a seamless transition.
But there is still much detail to disagree on. For example I seem to have in mind a far more dramatic range of substitute systems & actions that powers may try to implement in the event of great woe than you have. You talk about systems stopping working, and suggest that when this happens all hopes of progress and alternative development, and the capital and energy needed to build new infrastructure, suddenly cease. But when I consider this eventuality I end up thinking about how humans and power structures will not simply sit back under such circumstances, shrug and retreat to their allotments.
There will be a change of priorities, enabling redirection of remaining resources to serve these priorities, etc. Just because a point is reached that there isnt enough energy left to keep markets from imploding, or to build new infrastructure at the same time as carrying on with life as we know it, doesnt mean transition wont happen. It can happen, but under conditions unlike the ones we are used to. We already see some hints about this may happen, a combination of eternal lack of results & faith in the future under a growth-god based system eventually leading to political & economic ideological changes for one. And the tendency of demand to be destroyed well enough ahead of actual supply shortages, so that a temporary buffer of spare capacity is unlocked and can be used to further the transition. So far this opportunity has not been properly unlocked because although the demand destruction has been there in many countries for some years now, the ideological change & coming to terms with things has not gotten very far yet. To get past that point either a series of more dramatic shocks that more closely resemble some of the doomer expectations are needed to shake people from their complacency, or a lot more years of slow economic pain & squeezing of consumption, perhaps lasting decades, will be required.
So when we disagree about various details, dont think that I expect the transition to be easy enough to manage that it would be suitable for a liberal with an easily upset stomach to survive the journey without vomiting out of the window on more than one occasion. But neither do I see it as resembling a voyage where we eventually just fall off a cliff into hopeless doom. Rather I expect a whole series of events over many decades, with different ideas and systems falling in and out of favour as a result. Rationing, war and revolution likely to be part of the mix, which will be tales of great suffering but also of opportunities becoming unlocked.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ta for that elbows. Great post. 
elbows
Well-Known Member
Ta for that elbows. Great post.
Cheers. You'd think that by now maybe I could manage to put it into fewer words, but I fail not just because I am a terrible waffler, but because almost every issue under the sun quickly becomes attached and brings the baggage of humanity with it. I mean never mind that we get into a mess when trying to figure out just how much the oil price influenced the financial woe, or even the talk of war or revolution that I sometimes throw into the peak oil mix, thats just the tip of the iceberg. Every bloody thing about this world that we find wrong or crazy is involved. I wished that by now the financial crisis would at least have opened up frequent and lurid debate in the mainstream about things such as work ethic, what we deliver in return for shovelling food into our gobs, what standard of living might be reasonable, and a range of things connected to the idea of economic growth. But unless I've missed something, very little of this has happened, and on the other side the peak oilers and those who may be aligned with them in some way are also still saying much the same thing as they were a decade ago.
Perhaps somewhere there is debate going on that is giving birth to ideas that may underpin the next dominant ideology thats fit for these storms and for framing the story of our lives and struggles accordingly. Perhaps someone is ferreting away joining these themes and creating a fascinating work that will one day be discovered and raised as a pillar of this new establishment. But if so, they have not shown themselves to me, and so I feel like we go round in circles.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
I think the ideological/poltical discourse is still locked into the idea of 'normal' economic cycles - recession, recovery, growth, over expansion - readjustment - recession. So its all a question of when the recovery kicks in and how to help make it happen.
The idea that the system is unsustainable and is now fundementally unfit for purpose has little currency within the dominant or popular discourses - yet. A few more years of zero growth and a few more greek stlye collapse might well see people reaching for far more radical solutions then austerity vs mild keynsian stimulus.
It may well be that falcon is correct and we are utterly fucked - but this seems a pointless position to take. As the surest way of making the worst happen is to assume that nothing can be done.
The idea that the system is unsustainable and is now fundementally unfit for purpose has little currency within the dominant or popular discourses - yet. A few more years of zero growth and a few more greek stlye collapse might well see people reaching for far more radical solutions then austerity vs mild keynsian stimulus.
It may well be that falcon is correct and we are utterly fucked - but this seems a pointless position to take. As the surest way of making the worst happen is to assume that nothing can be done.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
Fuck me you are depressing , I will stay happily in my cocoon of optimism thanks .
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
You're expecting someone will be engineering the sun to emit between 25 and 250 times more?
Or just change the rules of arithmetic?
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
a watt of solar power in 1970 cost $ 100 to produce , today it is under $ 1 .00 a watt ( ripped from Wikipedia )
Battery life of a mobile in the 70s was a couple of hours , today it can be a week or more .
Average MPG for a car in the 70`s was in the low 20s , today it is in the mids 35s , many smaller cars now averaging in the 60s , who knows where we will be in another 25 years
I am saying you cannot judge everything on todays technical limitations , there is no single solution but opportunities for huge improvements in efficiency of existing technology
Ah, so it's arithmetic you want to change.
Best (not most cost-effective) practical photovoltaics convert about 10% of incoming radiation to energy (ripped from memory). So an improvement to nearly 100% would still leave you needing 25 times the area of the ship - or require that insolation increased 25-fold. Which would produce problems of its own.
Which is the heart of the problem about blind technological optimism: wilful disregard of physical constraints imposed by, you know, that Universe thingy.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
So you are still applying current technology restrictions to evidence what we won`t be able to do in the future ?
On that basis I concede we are all doomed .
On that basis I concede we are all doomed .
No, I'm applying the output of the Sun as a restriction on what we'll be able to do in the future.
No, on your basis we are all doomed.
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
but not applying the possibility that the conversion rate of the output of the sun into usable energy MAY improve ? It is only one of many options after all , it isn`t the solution
We are all doomed as the saying goes but I believe that there is at least the possibility we may survive a while yet .
gosub
~#
http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/29/antarctica-methane?cat=environment&type=article. One way of getting the moratorium overturned, ie its suicide not to
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
..
hammerntongues
Well-Known Member
Explain to someone who can only count up to 10 then you condescending cunt , I was trying to have a semi serious discussion and you respond with that , fuckwit .
Are you saying that there is no room for the conversion rate of the sun`s energy to be improve from present levels at all , ever ? really ? I am not nor was trying to suggest that our problems can be resolved by the power of the sun but it is one of the areas that has yet to reach its full potential . whether or not it will ever be sufficient to power a ship really is n`t the point I was trying to make .
I am going back to football forum where my limited education and grasp of physics is less noticeable , and will revel in the signing of Andy Carrol .
Are you saying that there is no room for the conversion rate of the sun`s energy to be improve from present levels at all , ever ? really ? I am not nor was trying to suggest that our problems can be resolved by the power of the sun but it is one of the areas that has yet to reach its full potential . whether or not it will ever be sufficient to power a ship really is n`t the point I was trying to make .
I am going back to football forum where my limited education and grasp of physics is less noticeable , and will revel in the signing of Andy Carrol .
If you were to take the trouble to read what I wrote, you would understand that I was saying that even if the conversion efficiency rose to 100% the energy output would still fall short by a factor of 25 or so.
Don't call someone a cunt because they point out that you are being either lazy, stupid, or both.
OK, output would fall short by a different factor. The principle that it is limited by solar irradiation and area available remains.
TruXta
tired
Nuclear.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A question for anyone who might know:
Assuming current problems to do with storing and transporting electricity can be overcome, what proportion of the world's energy requirements could realistically be supplied by turning the whole of Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter and huge sections of the Sahara over to solar-powered electricity generation?
To me, this kind of blocking out of massive areas of unused space and dedicating it to energy production is a very likely future. The Empty Quarter is larger than France, and it really is empty - there really isn't much of a lot of consequence going on there in terms of life, certainly nothing whose disappearance is likely to adversely affect anywhere else.
Assuming current problems to do with storing and transporting electricity can be overcome, what proportion of the world's energy requirements could realistically be supplied by turning the whole of Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter and huge sections of the Sahara over to solar-powered electricity generation?
To me, this kind of blocking out of massive areas of unused space and dedicating it to energy production is a very likely future. The Empty Quarter is larger than France, and it really is empty - there really isn't much of a lot of consequence going on there in terms of life, certainly nothing whose disappearance is likely to adversely affect anywhere else.
TruXta
tired
Plenty of wildlife there, and people do live in parts of it (the oases).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
In the Empty Quarter? Nobody lives there and there is precious little wildlife.
There needs to be some pragmatism about habitat destruction, imo. And some hard choices made about which habitats can be destroyed.
TruXta
tired
Oh, I must have hallucinated those towns we drove past then. And there is wildlife ffs.
Similar threads
- Poll
