Magus
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 5:57 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 114
It seems obvious that globally we are about to, or are already in the midst of, an energy crisis. There is no way that the material standard of living in the West is sustainable. The developing world won't be allowed to industrialise along the Western/Chinese model of fossil fuels as developed nations are already moving to securing dwindling natural resources for themselves. The USA isn't all over the Middle East because they like the sun, nor is China all over Africa because of a deep-seated concern for the wellbeing of the world's poor. This being the case, obviously then the prognosis of the populations of many third world nations ins't great, and the developed world is naturally stoking the fires for extremist ideologies to spread.
I am not really a fan of consumerism. I like innovation but don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the model of buying a new pair of shoes every 6 months going away forever or the demise of $10,000 handbags. No love lost there. What is worrying however is that many of our favourite technologies; from CAT scanners to modern day information systems and air transport are so dependant on energy that it is hard to see how in a world where energy is prohibitively scarce (and increasingly shared among different powerful nations) that they will continue to proliferate in the manner they have over the last 50 years, let alone continually develop into higher forms (does this mean no robots?).
A shift towards renewables (sun, wind, wave, geothermal) is of course inevitable. However none of these technologies are capable of supporting anywhere near our current energy usage habits and this hasn't been recognised. Renewables tend to be very inefficient in terms of land needed (we're talking like 30% plus of a nations' landmass in most instances given current usage rates) and implementing them in any meaningful sense would require both massive economic sacrifices and a level of political foresight and will which hasn't really been seen in the developed world for several hundred years. In the democratic West, we are basically in a political gridlock and suffering from systemic economic problems before we begin. There are riots across Europe due to the 'austerity' which really from an economic point of view isn't even austerity to begin with (government balance sheets are still growing) so I think its fair to say that the reality that we are going to have to scale back our standard of living hasn't quite sunk in yet.
For a detailed and neutral (quantitative!) study at the energy problem and the realities of renewable have a look at Cambridge Professor David McKay's free book.
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
Even so, I feel even he is a little optimistic in canvassing some of the hypothetical solutions to the problem. For example, he shows the solar panels necessary (about half the area of Libya -- due to it's being in the Sahara) needed to power all of Europe's current energy needs. But its not like Libya is a country which is willing or capable to invest trillions into turning itself into a giant solar array for the benefit of the West. Without trying to sound condescending, they are somewhat backward and still in the process of resolving a civil war. I mean, realistically it would literally have to involve the wholesale annexation of Libya by Europe to turn into a power generator if it was actually going to happen. The Libya solar array is probably his most ambitious suggestion, he canvasses several but I don't think its possible to over state the practical difficulties of it or any other possible "solution." Bear in mind of course, that even if possible over the next 50 years, all these 'solutions' merely generate the current amount of energy. If we want robots and spaceships and stuff, we would need to exponentially increase energy production.
What strikes me is that there is literally no-one in the public sphere that I can see who is willing to actually come out an challenge this dogma of "continuous economic growth/production/technology will save us" which pervades everything. Human beings have always struck me as ironic creatures. We are the only organism (as far as we know) which is capable of appreciating and even aggressively seeking out truth yet we invest so much energy in hiding ourselves away from it.
Thoughts?
Is it too early to go out and stock up on guns and gold? ...
I am not really a fan of consumerism. I like innovation but don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the model of buying a new pair of shoes every 6 months going away forever or the demise of $10,000 handbags. No love lost there. What is worrying however is that many of our favourite technologies; from CAT scanners to modern day information systems and air transport are so dependant on energy that it is hard to see how in a world where energy is prohibitively scarce (and increasingly shared among different powerful nations) that they will continue to proliferate in the manner they have over the last 50 years, let alone continually develop into higher forms (does this mean no robots?).
A shift towards renewables (sun, wind, wave, geothermal) is of course inevitable. However none of these technologies are capable of supporting anywhere near our current energy usage habits and this hasn't been recognised. Renewables tend to be very inefficient in terms of land needed (we're talking like 30% plus of a nations' landmass in most instances given current usage rates) and implementing them in any meaningful sense would require both massive economic sacrifices and a level of political foresight and will which hasn't really been seen in the developed world for several hundred years. In the democratic West, we are basically in a political gridlock and suffering from systemic economic problems before we begin. There are riots across Europe due to the 'austerity' which really from an economic point of view isn't even austerity to begin with (government balance sheets are still growing) so I think its fair to say that the reality that we are going to have to scale back our standard of living hasn't quite sunk in yet.
For a detailed and neutral (quantitative!) study at the energy problem and the realities of renewable have a look at Cambridge Professor David McKay's free book.
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
Even so, I feel even he is a little optimistic in canvassing some of the hypothetical solutions to the problem. For example, he shows the solar panels necessary (about half the area of Libya -- due to it's being in the Sahara) needed to power all of Europe's current energy needs. But its not like Libya is a country which is willing or capable to invest trillions into turning itself into a giant solar array for the benefit of the West. Without trying to sound condescending, they are somewhat backward and still in the process of resolving a civil war. I mean, realistically it would literally have to involve the wholesale annexation of Libya by Europe to turn into a power generator if it was actually going to happen. The Libya solar array is probably his most ambitious suggestion, he canvasses several but I don't think its possible to over state the practical difficulties of it or any other possible "solution." Bear in mind of course, that even if possible over the next 50 years, all these 'solutions' merely generate the current amount of energy. If we want robots and spaceships and stuff, we would need to exponentially increase energy production.
What strikes me is that there is literally no-one in the public sphere that I can see who is willing to actually come out an challenge this dogma of "continuous economic growth/production/technology will save us" which pervades everything. Human beings have always struck me as ironic creatures. We are the only organism (as far as we know) which is capable of appreciating and even aggressively seeking out truth yet we invest so much energy in hiding ourselves away from it.
Thoughts?
Is it too early to go out and stock up on guns and gold? ...