Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
Richard Heinberg wrote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining
Perhaps Heinberg meant something other than what he wrote, I don't know.
No he didn't. He also wrote:
Quote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (usually a year) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
Of course, he left the time interval open to debate. I know you don't assume anything and choose to interpret things as tightly as you possibly can but, since Heinberg didn't specify an actual interval, it is reasonable to assume that the interval should be meaningful in human terms. If you don't wish to be reasonable, that is your prerogative but it hardly helps the discussion here.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
If one of your quibbles about that axiom is that no time period is defined for the decline, then suggest one and we can close that particular issue.
Sounds fine. I suggest that we alter the axiom such that it applies to the rest of the inhabitable lifetime of the Earth
Fine, now I realise that you're not serious, since it is impossible to measure the depletion rate over that time scale. Clearly, the depletion rate must be measurable and meaningful, for us to apply it to the consumption rate.
yesplease wrote:
First off, I never stated until the human species becomes extinct
Well, if the earth is uninhabitable, is that not the same thing, from human's point of view? Clearly, humans can't consume anything if there are none of them, and since that is bound to occur before the earth becomes uninhabitable, or at least at the same time, it seems a minor point to raise.
yesplease wrote:
Anyway, back OT, as an example, lets say Silicon. Googling shows that the Earth's is 5.98x10^24 kg, and since Silicon is about 15% of this, then there is about .9x10^24 kg of it, a significant portion of which is likely available given the other axioms since more than half of that is in the Earth's crust. We extract about five million tons, or about ten trillion kgs, per year currently, so in order to use ten percent of this Silicon we would need to increase extraction rates by a couple orders of magnitude and continue them for the next billion years, assuming we would recycle none of what we have used. Clearly we can't use it at any rate, the rate of use must take into account the other axioms and the URR, but given the likely limits on population, even with those that are considered optimistic and are in the tens of billions, it's possible to increase the rate of use of Silicon from now until when the Earth is uninhabitable provided we don't kill ourselves off doing something else in the process.
Thanks for the convoluted example. I think the point of the axioms is sustainability of the whole society, so it's not a particularly useful example. The axioms can't go into every last resource that we might want to use or give a long list of exceptions (OK, it could, but it would require extensive research and wouldn't be particularly helpful anyway, in describing a sustainable society)
yesplease wrote:
Resource use could grow in a sustainable society over the Te so long as it does not violate the other axioms or exceed the URR. The example above illustrates this.
No it doesn't, it illustrates a convoluted scenario where a society grows its use of a single resource that possibly has a vast recoverable base, and that has whatever other resources are need to extract and use that resource and that hasn't otherwise collapsed because of other limits, can be called sustainable. Since a useful definition of sustainability must also be practical, there seems little use in inventing scenarios that cannot happen.
yesplease wrote:
Bartlett stated that extraction, not use, would have to approach zero between when extraction started, t=zero, and t=infinity, for a finite resource. He assumes an infinite amount of time. If he assumed a finite amount of time he would use t="a finite amount of time" as a bound instead of t=infinity.
Would he? Maybe you know him better than I but I doubt he would feel the need for that. I explained my interpretation, you disagree. Fine but perhaps you shouldn't put words into the mouths of others when you complain so often about my doing that to you.
yesplease wrote:
It's rational to limit sustainability to the Le because the axioms discuss the limits of the Earth. If the Earth cannot support life as we know it, discussion of those limits is moot.
If, by Le, you mean the life of the earth, I agree. So let's aim for sustainability for the life of the earth. How does that affect the axioms?
yesplease wrote:
I never said that it will compromise our ability to deal with waste in a sustainable society, I stated that it could. Clearly it won't in all versions of a sustainable society as per the axioms, but it would allow for sustainability given some waste streams that otherwise couldn't be dealt with if we didn't have the resources needed.
How could waste streams not be dealt with if we reduce consumption of silicon by the depletion rate? The depletion rate inferred from your figures is 0.000000000001% per year; what serious consequences do you think that rate of decline would have in our ability to process our waste?
yesplease wrote:
In terms of Silicon, given how much is available, the amount we use now, the amount we do recycle and could recycle, and how much we could use due to limits in other arenas like other non-renewable resources and population growth, we could use the same or more Silicon each year, say an increase of on average 1%/year for three centuries than enough to offset the inefficiencies of recycling and keep what's used for supply constant, which could decrease waste streams from other power generation methods, until the Te, w/o risk of depletion. The figures are above.
And, if true, show an almost immeasurable depletion rate. However, in human terms, I'm not sure if we'd have the resources to extract and process, or be able to figure out how to use 16 times the current amount of silicon, or what the environmental effects might be. Maybe not extracting that much silicon would leave us in better shape (waste wise) than extracting 1% more each year.
yesplease wrote:
Not quite. Whether or not it's a problem IMO depends on what you mean by problem, which you haven't stated. May or may not didn't mean could, it meant I didn't know because you haven't defined what you meant by problem. In any event, what do you mean, quantitatively, by become a problem?
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by the question. Can you not imagine any sort of problems for a society that uses resources which become scarce? Of course, it may be possible to find solutions to scarcity for some resource limits or to substitute (at a different level of efficacy) for others. But we'd have to be very lucky to be able to pick off every resource scarcity problem without seeing any downturns in the economy, human welfare or environment. I suppose we could keep our fingers crossed, though
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Richard Heinberg wrote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining
Perhaps Heinberg meant something other than what he wrote, I don't know.
No he didn't. He also wrote:
Quote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (usually a year) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
In that he talks about extraction and use. If he states the rate of use must decline, by his own statement it cannot increase or stay the same, regardless of interval. If he had changed that to, say, stating the rate must decline over some time period, but can increase or stay the same at times, then sure, but he didn't.
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course, he left the time interval open to debate. I know you don't assume anything and choose to interpret things as tightly as you possibly can but, since Heinberg didn't specify an actual interval, it is reasonable to assume that the interval should be meaningful in human terms.
Like I said before, if it was worded differently, sure. But, he stated the rate, ie the amount used over some interval, must decline. If the rate must decline, it cannot increase or stay the same, and regardless of what interval you pick, since the rate couldn't increase or stay the same, it must decline, according to his own words.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
If one of your quibbles about that axiom is that no time period is defined for the decline, then suggest one and we can close that particular issue.
Sounds fine. I suggest that we alter the axiom such that it applies to the rest of the inhabitable lifetime of the Earth
Fine, now I realise that you're not serious, since it is impossible to measure the depletion rate over that time scale. Clearly, the depletion rate must be measurable and meaningful, for us to apply it to the consumption rate.
Of course it is. A depletion rate can be measured by using a finite amount of time an a finite depletion rate. Although, for use, depletion is not the only part of the picture, recycling can play a significant part.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
First off, I never stated until the human species becomes extinct
Well, if the earth is uninhabitable, is that not the same thing, from human's point of view? Clearly, humans can't consume anything if there are none of them, and since that is bound to occur before the earth becomes uninhabitable, or at least at the same time, it seems a minor point to raise.
That seems reasonable. I'm just a bit strict in terms of interpretation considering how much you have to accused me of saying or implying something I didn't.
TonyPrep wrote:
Thanks for the convoluted example. I think the point of the axioms is sustainability of the whole society, so it's not a particularly useful example. The axioms can't go into every last resource that we might want to use or give a long list of exceptions (OK, it could, but it would require extensive research and wouldn't be particularly helpful anyway, in describing a sustainable society)
Well, along those lines, I think the axiom should be changed so that the essay provides a general definition instead of a specific definition. That, and I don't think Silicon use is necessarily a convoluted example, although I suppose my statement about it could be, because it's the primary component in solar panels that can generate relatively clean electricity for as long as the Earth is habitable. It is also a non-renewable resource that could grow in use and extraction rates in a sustainable society, contrary to Heinberg's axioms.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Resource use could grow in a sustainable society over the Te so long as it does not violate the other axioms or exceed the URR. The example above illustrates this.
No it doesn't, it illustrates a convoluted scenario where a society grows its use of a single resource that possibly has a vast recoverable base, and that has whatever other resources are need to extract and use that resource and that hasn't otherwise collapsed because of other limits, can be called sustainable. Since a useful definition of sustainability must also be practical, there seems little use in inventing scenarios that cannot happen.
How can that example not happen? If the society collapses because of other resources it uses and abuses, then clearly it wasn't sustainable in the first place and discussion is moot. I'm just pointing out that Heinberg's axiom isn't a decent general definition of sustainable, which is shown via my example that a sustainable society could increase use and even extraction, provided it wasn't in excess, until the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Bartlett stated that extraction, not use, would have to approach zero between when extraction started, t=zero, and t=infinity, for a finite resource. He assumes an infinite amount of time. If he assumed a finite amount of time he would use t="a finite amount of time" as a bound instead of t=infinity.
Would he? Maybe you know him better than I but I doubt he would feel the need for that. I explained my interpretation, you disagree. Fine but perhaps you shouldn't put words into the mouths of others when you complain so often about my doing that to you.
It's, as Heinberg pointed out, a mathematical statement. There isn't much to interpret. Like I said before, feel free to interpret anything as you like, but what Bartlett wrote is not logical as it assumes infinite time for resource use. If you feel we have an infinite amount of time to use resources, that's fine.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
It's rational to limit sustainability to the Le because the axioms discuss the limits of the Earth. If the Earth cannot support life as we know it, discussion of those limits is moot.
If, by Le, you mean the life of the earth, I agree. So let's aim for sustainability for the life of the earth. How does that affect the axioms?
Like I stated before, as a general statement of sustainability the essay fails due to axiom four for the reasons I've illustrated many times.
TonyPrep wrote:
And, if true, show an almost immeasurable depletion rate. However, in human terms, I'm not sure if we'd have the resources to extract and process, or be able to figure out how to use 16 times the current amount of silicon, or what the environmental effects might be. Maybe not extracting that much silicon would leave us in better shape (waste wise) than extracting 1% more each year.
And, we wouldn't need to, fortunately. Although we probably could considering it's more or less just dirt. That being said, it allows for significant production or both microprocessors and solar panels to power them. Not that this is all a sustainable society needs, just something one can use. Given the choice, I would rather live in a sustainable society with electricity and other conveniences than one w/o.
TonyPrep wrote:
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by the question.
What problems are you talking about specifically, in terms that are quantified, not qualified. IE, something like the available Cu seems likely to peak by ABCD (year) and M tons, which wouldn't allow for expansion of one of it's uses that society would collapse w/o in some amount of time.
TonyPrep wrote:
Can you not imagine any sort of problems for a society that uses resources which become scarce? Of course, it may be possible to find solutions to scarcity for some resource limits or to substitute (at a different level of efficacy) for others. But we'd have to be very lucky to be able to pick off every resource scarcity problem without seeing any downturns in the economy, human welfare or environment. I suppose we could keep our fingers crossed, though
Of course I can. I'm asking you because you were the one who brought up the topic. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
In that he talks about extraction and use. If he states the rate of use must decline, by his own statement it cannot increase or stay the same, regardless of interval. If he had changed that to, say, stating the rate must decline over some time period, but can increase or stay the same at times, then sure, but he didn't. Like I said before, if it was worded differently, sure. But, he stated the rate, ie the amount used over some interval, must decline. If the rate must decline, it cannot increase or stay the same, and regardless of what interval you pick, since the rate couldn't increase or stay the same, it must decline, according to his own words.
You're right, to a degree but he didn't state the time interval, so you got that bit wrong. The rate of consumption can increase over short periods but must not increase over the time period chosen for measuring the depletion rate of the resource in question. Of course, it was not stated the way I have, and maybe that would be a fair criticism but who said the wording was cast in stone? The purpose should not change (i.e. to ensure the level of consumption of finite resources does not continue to grow indefinitely). It seems petty, in the extreme, to quibble over this issue. Perhaps you'd like to offer a better wording? I'm sure Heinberg would not mind, provided the essence of the axiom stayed.
yesplease wrote:
That seems reasonable. I'm just a bit strict in terms of interpretation considering how much you have to accused me of saying or implying something I didn't.
Thanks. I have learned to try and avoid implications, with your posts, since you almost always (or maybe always) state that is not what should be implied, though you don't always add anything to that complaint to put me right.
yesplease wrote:
How can that example not happen? If the society collapses because of other resources it uses and abuses, then clearly it wasn't sustainable in the first place and discussion is moot. I'm just pointing out that Heinberg's axiom isn't a decent general definition of sustainable, which is shown via my example that a sustainable society could increase use and even extraction, provided it wasn't in excess, until the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
It can't happen for the reasons I stated. It's just unreasonable to expect a society to reduce consumption of all resources except one, which it somehow continues to grow consumption of. I think it's also unreasonable for that continued growth (if it were somehow possible) to not have other adverse consequences.
Quote:
It's, as Heinberg pointed out, a mathematical statement. There isn't much to interpret. Like I said before, feel free to interpret anything as you like, but what Bartlett wrote is not logical as it assumes infinite time for resource use. If you feel we have an infinite amount of time to use resources, that's fine.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Bartlett's quote was an off the cuff mathematical proof that a resource doesn't need to be infinite to last a very long time, provided that consumption tends to zero. He didn't say he believed we had an infinite amount of time. I don't need to assume anything in saying that you certainly believe he did, and that is your prerogative, though it's not a very helpful belief.
yesplease wrote:
And, we wouldn't need to, fortunately. Although we probably could considering it's more or less just dirt. That being said, it allows for significant production or both microprocessors and solar panels to power them. Not that this is all a sustainable society needs, just something one can use. Given the choice, I would rather live in a sustainable society with electricity and other conveniences than one w/o.
The axioms have nothing to do with preferences for how a sustainable society might be organised, only with the essential characteristics of that society, if it is to be sustainable. However, you still haven't explained how axiom four can lessen our ability to process our waste.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Can you not imagine any sort of problems for a society that uses resources which become scarce? Of course, it may be possible to find solutions to scarcity for some resource limits or to substitute (at a different level of efficacy) for others. But we'd have to be very lucky to be able to pick off every resource scarcity problem without seeing any downturns in the economy, human welfare or environment. I suppose we could keep our fingers crossed, though
Of course I can. I'm asking you because you were the one who brought up the topic.
Thanks, that's all I was trying to get at.
I think we both agree that the axioms provide a good general statement of the characteristics of a sustainable society. We seem to have a strong disagreement on the specifics of how a society can be measured against those axioms and on the need for a more rigorous wording on axiom four. Might I suggest this?
Quote:
To be sustainable, the consumption of any non-renewable raw resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion, where that rate is measured over a period that is proportional to the estimated resource base.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (proportional to the resource base) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
The time period over which the consumption and depletion rates are measured, depends on the size of the resource base but should be meaningful in human terms to ensure that consumption is tending toward zero. It is unlikely to exceed one decade.
I could imagine that there may be periods when a society has to be pragmatic about any set of axioms and allow deviation from them for some beneficial overriding reason, provided there is a firm plan to bring society back on course.
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
You're right, to a degree but he didn't state the time interval, so you got that bit wrong. The rate of consumption can increase over short periods but must not increase over the time period chosen for measuring the depletion rate of the resource in question.
If, as you contend, that the rate must fall over some larger time period, but can rise or stay the same over some smaller period, lets look at that example according to axiom four. If we pick the smaller interval, and apply Heinberg's axiom, then well.. the rate still must decrease, so it can't increase or stay the same. If we look at a smaller time interval, well, crap, since the rate must decrease, we're still out of luck. Etc.. That's the problem with using rate in such a strict fashion.
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course, it was not stated the way I have, and maybe that would be a fair criticism but who said the wording was cast in stone? The purpose should not change (i.e. to ensure the level of consumption of finite resources does not continue to grow indefinitely). It seems petty, in the extreme, to quibble over this issue.
It isn't cast is stone, and it could be changed. Until it is, I will continue to state that is incorrect in describing all sustainable societies.
TonyPrep wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to offer a better wording? I'm sure Heinberg would not mind, provided the essence of the axiom stayed.
Do you read my posts in their entirety?
yesplease wrote:
I suggest that we alter the axiom such that it applies to the rest of the inhabitable lifetime of the Earth (I'll call it Te), since after that it won't matter much, and non-renewable resource use is constrained by the recycling efficiency given use, and URR, given the other axioms, of said resource. It can naturally be less than this, but not more. As per the English language, use and extraction are different things.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
How can that example not happen? If the society collapses because of other resources it uses and abuses, then clearly it wasn't sustainable in the first place and discussion is moot. I'm just pointing out that Heinberg's axiom isn't a decent general definition of sustainable, which is shown via my example that a sustainable society could increase use and even extraction, provided it wasn't in excess, until the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
It can't happen for the reasons I stated. It's just unreasonable to expect a society to reduce consumption of all resources except one, which it somehow continues to grow consumption of. I think it's also unreasonable for that continued growth (if it were somehow possible) to not have other adverse consequences.
It's entirely reasonable given the availability of resources with a small URR compared to use, that we can likely exhaust and be forced to recycle, compared to those with an relatively large URR compared to use, where we could increase consumption until the Sun roasts us and still have most of it left over. Like I stated before, to use just 10% of the Silicon on the Earth we would have to increase extraction by a thousand times right now and continue that for the next billion years. Different resources have different URRs and as such with some we will clearly need to recycle them if we expect to continue to use them for the next billion years or so, while with others, due to availability, we probably won't.
TonyPrep wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth.
How did I put words in your mouth?
TonyPrep wrote:
Bartlett's quote was an off the cuff mathematical proof that a resource doesn't need to be infinite to last a very long time, provided that consumption tends to zero. He didn't say he believed we had an infinite amount of time.
That is not a mathematical proof AFAIK. Bartlett modeled resource extraction assuming infinite time, and stated that this would allow for the resource to be used in declining amounts forever.
Bartlett wrote:
If we choose a rate of decline of the rate of extraction of the resource such that the integrated total of all future extraction equals the present size of the remaining resource then we have a program that will allow the resource to be available in declining amounts for use forever.
Worrying about using resources forever is just as silly as worrying about using them for only ten years. Actually, more so, since we could conceivably wipe ourselves out in ten years via who knows what, but I know of no way we would continue on for, as Bartlett stated, forever.
TonyPrep wrote:
I don't need to assume anything in saying that you certainly believe he did, and that is your prerogative, though it's not a very helpful belief.
It isn't a belief. It's based on Bartlett's own statement and model. If he assumed bounds of t=0 to t=10years, then his model would only cover that time frame. If he assumes bounds of t=0 to t=infinity, then his model covers that time frame. Since he uses that model as the basis for the statement that if we choose a declining rate of extraction, we could use the resource in available amounts forever, then that's assuming we can use it forever. Pointing out that we won't last forever/an infinite amount of time doesn't make my statements about his statement beliefs. Do you contend that we will last forever and that modeling resource use for an infinite amount of time is realistic?
TonyPrep wrote:
The axioms have nothing to do with preferences for how a sustainable society might be organised, only with the essential characteristics of that society, if it is to be sustainable.
Like I said before, I think the axioms should describe sustainability in general. If they don't, and leave out, as you have stated, societies that follow all the other axioms but are organized in a way the precludes just one axiom, then they don't describe all sustainable societies. Along those lines, Heinberg could just as easily add another axiom that only societies whose members wear red hats are sustainable, and I would state the same things I'm stating now more or less. Since there can be societies that adhere to all the other axioms except four, four in it's current form isn't required for a sustainable society.
TonyPrep wrote:
However, you still haven't explained how axiom four can lessen our ability to process our waste.
Processing waste is done via many methods that require use of non-renewable resources. If we use less of a non-renewable resource, then we can process less waste, and that can be the difference between a sustainable and unsustainable society. Like I stated before, I would prefer a general definition of sustainable, as opposed to Heinberg's limited definition. If he uses axioms that only cover some sustainable societies, then it isn't a good general definition.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Of course I can. I'm asking you because you were the one who brought up the topic.
Thanks, that's all I was trying to get at.
What were you trying to get at? And you still haven't answered my question btw.
TonyPrep wrote:
I think we both agree that the axioms provide a good general statement of the characteristics of a sustainable society.
I do not agree. Axiom four precludes a range of societies that could adhere to the other axioms due to irrational thinking and/or poor construction by the author.
TonyPrep wrote:
We seem to have a strong disagreement on the specifics of how a society can be measured against those axioms and on the need for a more rigorous wording on axiom four. Might I suggest this?
Quote:
To be sustainable, the consumption of any non-renewable raw resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion, where that rate is measured over a period that is proportional to the estimated resource base.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (proportional to the resource base) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
The time period over which the consumption and depletion rates are measured, depends on the size of the resource base but should be meaningful in human terms to ensure that consumption is tending toward zero. It is unlikely to exceed one decade.
You haven't defined consumption, so I really can't say much about it since I don't know what you mean. Could you define it quantitatively? _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
If, as you contend, that the rate must fall over some larger time period, but can rise or stay the same over some smaller period, lets look at that example according to axiom four. If we pick the smaller interval, and apply Heinberg's axiom, then well.. the rate still must decrease, so it can't increase or stay the same. If we look at a smaller time interval, well, crap, since the rate must decrease, we're still out of luck. Etc.. That's the problem with using rate in such a strict fashion.
I don't think you read my point. The axiom does not preclude any particular time period for any particular resource. Of course, the time period must be meaningful for human time-scales and for the resource in question. Given that, what you wrote doesn't make sense. If society settles on period X for some resource, as the period during which we measure both depletion and consumption, then of course consumption could rise over smaller periods within the chosen period, provided it doesn't rise over the longer chosen period for that resource.
yesplease wrote:
Do you read my posts in their entirety?
Yes. I took it that you were being, at least slightly, facetious in proposing a period of the lifetime of the earth. If you were serious then I don't think such a proposal would gain wide acceptance, since it would be impossible for societies to measure consumption and depletion rates over that time (i.e. to measure the amount extracted over your chosen period, humans would have to keep track of extraction for the lifetime of the earth and only then calculate the rate, since rate is an amount over a specifed time, as you keep pointing out).
yesplease wrote:
It's entirely reasonable given the availability of resources with a small URR compared to use, that we can likely exhaust and be forced to recycle, compared to those with an relatively large URR compared to use, where we could increase consumption until the Sun roasts us and still have most of it left over.
I understand all that but I don't think you got my meaning. Your imaginary example would entail us consuming the large resource in increasing amounts (16 times more in 200 years) whilst not increasing consumption of other resources (indeed, decreasing them). Maybe one can imagine such a scenario but it has a zero probability of occurring since increasing consumption of one resource will have a drag on effect on other resources (unless you propose that we use only silicon to extract, process and manufacture products from silicon that have silicon as the only constituent)? And, over long periods (centuries) extraction of that much silicon is likely to have some adverse environmental impacts.
yesplease wrote:
How did I put words in your mouth?
Why did you not read the quote that I was replying to? You said: "If you feel we have an infinite amount of time to use resources, that's fine."
yesplease wrote:
That is not a mathematical proof AFAIK. Bartlett modeled resource extraction assuming infinite time, and stated that this would allow for the resource to be used in declining amounts forever.
Is English your native language? That is a genuine question because you seem to interpret things in ways that would be surprising during normal English conversation. I'm sorry, but if you really still feel that way after all of our exchanges, then I don't think further posts on this particular issue would be fruitful. I don't think Bartlett believes that we have an infinite amount of time in which to use resources, and neither do I. His essential point appears to be lost on you. It is that we can consume a finite resource for as long as humans remain in existence, provided we consume decreasing amounts of it. That is all.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
The axioms have nothing to do with preferences for how a sustainable society might be organised, only with the essential characteristics of that society, if it is to be sustainable.
Like I said before, I think the axioms should describe sustainability in general.
And they most certainly do. What you have tried to show, with a convoluted silicon example is that you could imagine a specific (i.e. not general) case where axiom four is violated for one particular resource. That's not a strong argument for jettisoning axiom four as a general axiom.
yesplease wrote:
Processing waste is done via many methods that require use of non-renewable resources. If we use less of a non-renewable resource, then we can process less waste, and that can be the difference between a sustainable and unsustainable society.
You are describing just one scenario, where humans, having invented the term "waste" and having decided to process that "waste" in one way can only process "waste" in that one way. There are other ways societies could manage "waste", without consuming more of a non-renewable resource. For example, a truly self sustainable property may never have to artificially process any human, animal or plant waste (by composting it) and would never have need to process plastic, or any other type, of packaging. So why do you think it would be impossible for a society to process the same amount of "waste" by using methods other than what they've used in the past and by being more efficient at those methods that do use non-renewables (until they are replaced)?
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
We seem to have a strong disagreement on the specifics of how a society can be measured against those axioms and on the need for a more rigorous wording on axiom four. Might I suggest this?
Quote:
To be sustainable, the consumption of any non-renewable raw resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion, where that rate is measured over a period that is proportional to the estimated resource base.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (proportional to the resource base) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
The time period over which the consumption and depletion rates are measured, depends on the size of the resource base but should be meaningful in human terms to ensure that consumption is tending toward zero. It is unlikely to exceed one decade.
You haven't defined consumption, so I really can't say much about it since I don't know what you mean. Could you define it quantitatively?
Consumption is the additional use of a resource beyond what it already being used in society. It implies extraction of more raw resource in order to process that raw resource into something that can be used. Consumption is used in the sense of consuming food, or consuming oil, when it's used, it's gone (apart from residual heat). I suppose it could be replaced by the word "extraction".
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 675 Location: Illinois
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
BigTex wrote:
Did kublikhan ever finish reading "Overshoot", I wonder?
I was really hoping he would check back in when he finished to let us know his thoughts.
He probably finished the book and now he's off looking for a cabin in the woods and getting his Mountain House food order together.
Have not finished it yet. He spends a great deal of time laying out the exponential forces at work and the scope of the problem. But he seems to give scant attention to possible mitigation technologies and in fact is darkly negative on them. I still want to finish the book, but am a bit disappointed by this aspect of it. I am hoping his dark pessimism on technology has more backing presented in other chapters than what I have already read. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
mos6507 wrote:
This thread has officially jumped the shark into a 1 on 1 semantical battle.
Its become yesplease and tonyprep going on and on about what sustainability means, and BigTex telling everyone they need to read his favorite doomer bibles before he'll talk to anyone.
Like most threads on this site, its a giant mess of useless noise.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Dezakin wrote:
mos6507 wrote:
This thread has officially jumped the shark into a 1 on 1 semantical battle.
Its become yesplease and tonyprep going on and on about what sustainability means, and BigTex telling everyone they need to read his favorite doomer bibles before he'll talk to anyone.
Like most threads on this site, its a giant mess of useless noise.
If you're not interested in sustainability, then just ignore it. Why did you feel the need to post something that added nothing to the discussion?
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
