Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
TonyPrep has been nagging me for a while for (allegedly!) not addressing the issue of scale. I promised him that I would attack it in depth if he could formulate the issue for me -- tell me what human beings will not be able to do -- in one sentence. He lived up to his side of the bargain, and it's a great sentence which should spark an interesting thread. Here it is:
The Problem of Scale: [Humans will not be able to... ] Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.
To begin, I think we need to clear the ground and agree on terms, so, Tony, what technologies does your "doesn't impact our habitat for the worse" rule out? Are we ruling out nuclear power? How about hydro? What's the criteria we should use to determine whether X has a negative impact on the habitat? _________________ A periscope up every ass!
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
JohnDenver wrote:
what technologies does your "doesn't impact our habitat for the worse" rule out?
Any that adversely impact our habitat. I realise that that answer must be frustrating for you. My point is that we need to investigate thoroughly any solution. On small scales, some may not have an impact we need to worry about (and some will) but on large scales, they may. Our habitat needs to be able to assimilate any pollution that would result from the suggested solution, in a way that doesn't adversely affect our ability to continue living in that environment. This is complicated stuff.
JohnDenver wrote:
Are we ruling out nuclear power? How about hydro? What's the criteria we should use to determine whether X has a negative impact on the habitat?
I don't rule out anything. Research is needed on these technologies, though we have some evidence from existing applications. Nuclear does pollute the environment but I'm not sure of the overall impact from the mining of uranium and from the need for long term storage of spent rods. This is separate from the longevity of the known resource, for current operational nuclear technologies. Hydro does have adverse impacts, in that it affects the flow of everything that the water contains and affects habitats downstream; some rivers don't even reach the sea any more. These impacts need to be assessed, and mitigation, if any, needs to be included.
I'm no expert in environmental sciences, so I can't give you a straight answer on what criteria determine negative impacts. We may need to treat each technology on its merits and thoroughly examine the chains of events that may emanate from its application.
However, scale alone would be a good starting point, as it is certainly something that you seem unwilling to address.
Here is an article about scale that puts some things into perspective. I have heard and read a few times (can't put my finger on an article right now) that the solar energy consumed by all the plant life in the US (not just crops) amounts to less than the energy consumed by the US, which, if true, is a sobering thought.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4527 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
About your last point, that we consume more energy than plants.
Our solar panels are more efficient than photosynthesis.
If we replace X acres of plants with X acres of modern solar panels, we increase the energy absorption of that area of land by an order of magnitude. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Apr 05, 2005 Posts: 1627 Location: Springsteen Country (NJ)
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
Tyler_JC wrote:
About your last point, that we consume more energy than plants.
Our solar panels are more efficient than photosynthesis.
If we replace X acres of plants with X acres of modern solar panels, we increase the energy absorption of that area of land by an order of magnitude.
Are you proposing we eat electricity or something? Or that we have the right, or should I say, gall to displace yet more of our fellow creature's habitat to satisfy our necessarily fleeting energy desires? The problem isn't that we're running out of fossil fuel energy, the real problem is that we don't seem to know when enough is enough. Seems like some of us only care about growing, no matter what the obvious consequences to the planet, the biosphere and ourselves and our descendants.
Yep, no different than yeast in a wine barrel... _________________ Joe P. United Political Debate
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4527 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
joewp wrote:
Tyler_JC wrote:
About your last point, that we consume more energy than plants.
Our solar panels are more efficient than photosynthesis.
If we replace X acres of plants with X acres of modern solar panels, we increase the energy absorption of that area of land by an order of magnitude.
Are you proposing we eat electricity or something? Or that we have the right, or should I say, gall to displace yet more of our fellow creature's habitat to satisfy our necessarily fleeting energy desires? The problem isn't that we're running out of fossil fuel energy, the real problem is that we don't seem to know when enough is enough. Seems like some of us only care about growing, no matter what the obvious consequences to the planet, the biosphere and ourselves and our descendants.
Yep, no different than yeast in a wine barrel...
I'm proposing that we cover our roofs with solar panels.
100,000,000 households, each with 2,000 square feet of roof is 2 trillion square feet.
Or roughly 70,000 square miles.
Feel free to round down to 50,000 square miles to compensate for apartment buildings (and add space for the roofs of shopping malls and office buildings)
Considering that California could get all of its electricity from 200 square miles of sunny desert...
The land use argument against solar power is a red herring.
As for the yeast in a wine barrel argument. Population growth is slowing down and will soon be negative. We may never hit 9 billion people at the current rate of deceleration.
Yeast can't choose smaller families, we can (and do).
For example:
Iran, a "backward" Muslim fundamentalist state, has a fertility rate of only 1.77. This is far less than replacement and well below the US level.
Syria, another backward Muslim fundamentalist state, has seen its fertility rate fall from 4 children/woman to 3.3 children/woman in the past 7 years. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
do you realize the energy and resources required to build solar panels? Don't forget they only last 15-20 years, and batteries even less. Good luck with that one; energy has a tendency to flow from higher concentration to lower concentration, making it go the other way requiresmore energy than you get. Just a law of science; I wish it weren't so.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
Tyler_JC wrote:
I'm proposing that we cover our roofs with solar panels.
100,000,000 households, each with 2,000 square feet of roof is 2 trillion square feet.
Or roughly 70,000 square miles.
Feel free to round down to 50,000 square miles to compensate for apartment buildings (and add space for the roofs of shopping malls and office buildings)
Considering that California could get all of its electricity from 200 square miles of sunny desert...
We don't have to kill a single dandelion.
Tyler, I realize you are a mod and all, but I must object. Coming up with reasonable, cost, space, effective, current technology and scalable solutions which have been obvious to non Doomers of the world since at least the Carter administration is simply outrageous.
Providing links verifying your claims is nothing short of treasonous and I think you should be reprimanded and your mod salary cut in half.
Joined: Apr 05, 2005 Posts: 1627 Location: Springsteen Country (NJ)
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
Tyler_JC wrote:
joewp wrote:
Are you proposing we eat electricity or something? Or that we have the right, or should I say, gall to displace yet more of our fellow creature's habitat to satisfy our necessarily fleeting energy desires? The problem isn't that we're running out of fossil fuel energy, the real problem is that we don't seem to know when enough is enough. Seems like some of us only care about growing, no matter what the obvious consequences to the planet, the biosphere and ourselves and our descendants.
Yep, no different than yeast in a wine barrel...
I'm proposing that we cover our roofs with solar panels.
100,000,000 households, each with 2,000 square feet of roof is 2 trillion square feet.
Or roughly 70,000 square miles.
Feel free to round down to 50,000 square miles to compensate for apartment buildings (and add space for the roofs of shopping malls and office buildings)
Considering that California could get all of its electricity from 200 square miles of sunny desert...
The land use argument against solar power is a red herring.
You said "If we replace X acres of plants with X acres of modern solar panels". Pardon me for taking you literally. If anybody introduced a red herring, it was you.
By the way, since we're talking about scale here, any idea of how we're going to make 50,000 square miles of solar panels, even with this nanosolar technology? Is there enough aluminum in the world? And scale is one thing, time is another. Obviously these whatever type of solar panels you're talking about will have to be transported to their point of use. Are you envisioning solar powered vehicles delivering solar panels all over the country?
Or are you going to show that this is just another "alternative" that's completely dependent on cheap oil?
Quote:
As for the yeast in a wine barrel argument. Population growth is slowing down and will soon be negative. We may never hit 9 billion people at the current rate of deceleration.
Yeast can't choose smaller families, we can (and do).
For example:
Iran, a "backward" Muslim fundamentalist state, has a fertility rate of only 1.77. This is far less than replacement and well below the US level.
Syria, another backward Muslim fundamentalist state, has seen its fertility rate fall from 4 children/woman to 3.3 children/woman in the past 7 years.
Perhaps it didn't occur to you, but it's already too late, since we're in terrible overshoot already. And while some states are reducing their birth rates, others are farming out pregnancy to third world countries, so please don't tell me about people "choosing" smaller families. And I'm not so sure that Iran and Syria are "choosing" smaller families, I tend to think that since those countries are severely past the point of sustainable populations, they're suffering from stress induced infertility, not consciously making a choice to have fewer children. _________________ Joe P. United Political Debate
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
Tyler_JC wrote:
I'm proposing that we cover our roofs with solar panels.
100,000,000 households, each with 2,000 square feet of roof is 2 trillion square feet.
Or roughly 70,000 square miles.
Feel free to round down to 50,000 square miles to compensate for apartment buildings (and add space for the roofs of shopping malls and office buildings)
You'd also have to compensate for roofs that are in a poor location, roofs that face the wrong way and for those who don't wish to have their roofs covered with solar panels (though I'd have little sympathy for them). Then there are the resources needed to do this and the possible side-effect of diverting all that sunlight for our energy needs.
Tyler_JC wrote:
The land use argument against solar power is a red herring.
Not really, since use of otherwise arable land already is being used for solar farms using photovoltaics. And your linked article included info about CSP, which could, presumably, not be placed on rooftops.
Tyler_JC wrote:
As for the yeast in a wine barrel argument. Population growth is slowing down and will soon be negative. We may never hit 9 billion people at the current rate of deceleration.
The US fertility rate is rising again (now 2.1). The CIA World Fact Book estimate is currently 1.167% growth. After a bit of googling last year, I discovered a UN estimate from 2000, which gave the growth rate as 1.16%. So what is the deceleration rate (or, more accurately, what is the deceleration rate of the growth rate) and how do you know that will continue?
Edit: I found some earlier versions of the World Fact Book and its 2001 estimate was 1.25%. So that would indicate a slowing of growth, to today (using the same estimation source). However, a 2004 estimate was 1.14%, which would indicate an acceleration in growth. All in all, I don't think we can assume that population will top out at 9 billion, absent some forcing factor (like reduced crop yields or climate change).
Last edited by TonyPrep on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4527 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
I'm not saying that we are actually going to build 50,000 square miles of solar panels.
I'm saying that the land scarcity argument is absurd.
We are currently wasting tens of thousands of square miles of land so that we can have unblemished roofs.
The doomer argument focuses on attacking each alternative source of energy because it is impossible to scale that particular source up to 100% of our energy needs.
When you add up ALL of the alternative sources, the solution to our energy crunch presents itself.
I am willing to admit that 50,000 square miles of solar panels is probably far greater than what we could build within the next decade or two.
But fortunately, it is not our only alternative energy source. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3330 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
An aside: Alan Drake was giving a CSP supporter a good bashing over the head about the potential of solar for Africa. Apparently they're gearing up to build one mama jamma of a dam on the Congo:
Quote:
One of Africa's biggest electricity companies yesterday unveiled plans to build the world's biggest hydro-electricity plant on a stretch of the Congo River, harnessing enough power for the whole continent.
The proposed plant at the Inga Rapids, near the river's mouth in the western Democratic Republic of Congo, would cost $50bn (£26bn) and could generate some 40,000MW, twice the power of China's Three Gorges dam.
Guardian Story, from two years back. Dunno if they've proceeded. 44 GW of juice, twice what the Three Gorges coughs up. Also this link, from the EIA: Inga Hydroelectric. $80 billion USD. Here's one from Dec. 6: Inga faces hydroelectric growing pains. Seems they're having trouble with potential transmission losses.
Not relevant to the NA situation of course but nevertheless interesting. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I will not abide another toe.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3330 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep has been nagging me for a while for (allegedly!) not addressing the issue of scale. I promised him that I would attack it in depth if he could formulate the issue for me -- tell me what human beings will not be able to do -- in one sentence.
Here's an easy one: we will never be able to supply the current level of US gasoline consumption with corn ethanol.
That was easy. You new to this debate, JD?
EDIT: Actually there's another thread at TOD today where SacredCowTipper pushes his plans for renewable production of corn ethanol - including biomethane, which some had a good snigger at in a recent post of mine.
Quote:
We're going to be putting an Ethanol 2.0 plan in front of the Iowa Legislature for this year's session, assuming NH3 and Alan Drake are willing to pitch in a little to help me put the finishing touches on it
The song goes something like this ...
Stranded wind to ammonia for fertilizer
Stranded wind to ammonia for fuel when it makes sense
Rail electrification with wind along rail corridors
Ethanol distiller's grain drying with wind or bio methane
Ethanol distiller's grain oil extract for biodiesel
Animal waste from fed distiller's grain for bio methane
So let's make that corn ethanol as it's currently produced. Actually I kinda doubt that the renewable part will help it to scale up either, but it will be sustainable at least.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4527 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
TonyPrep wrote:
Tyler_JC wrote:
I'm proposing that we cover our roofs with solar panels.
100,000,000 households, each with 2,000 square feet of roof is 2 trillion square feet.
Or roughly 70,000 square miles.
Feel free to round down to 50,000 square miles to compensate for apartment buildings (and add space for the roofs of shopping malls and office buildings)
You'd also have to compensate for roofs that are in a poor location, roofs that face the wrong way and for those who don't wish to have their roofs covered with solar panels (though I'd have little sympathy for them). Then there are the resources needed to do this and the possible side-effect of diverting all that sunlight for our energy needs.
Tyler_JC wrote:
The land use argument against solar power is a red herring.
Not really, since use of otherwise arable land already is being used for solar farms using photovoltaics. And your linked article included info about CSP, which could, presumably, not be placed on rooftops.
Tyler_JC wrote:
As for the yeast in a wine barrel argument. Population growth is slowing down and will soon be negative. We may never hit 9 billion people at the current rate of deceleration.
The US fertility rate is rising again (now 2.1). The CIA World Fact Book estimate is currently 1.167% growth. After a bit of googling last year, I discovered a UN estimate from 2000, which gave the growth rate as 1.16%. So what is the deceleration rate (or, more accurately, what is the deceleration rate of the growth rate) and how do you know that will continue?
Edit: I found some earlier versions of the World Fact Book and its 2001 estimate was 1.25%. So that would indicate a slowing of growth, to today (using the same estimation source). However, a 2004 estimate was 1.14%, which would indicate an acceleration in growth. All in all, I don't think we can assume that population will top out at 9 billion, absent some forcing factor (like reduced crop yields or climate change).
OK, compensate for all of those factors and say that I was over optimistic by an order of magnitude.
That's still 5,000 square miles of roof.
50 miles by 100 miles.
I've heard estimates that we would need 10,000 square miles (100 by 100) to get all of our energy from solar power.
So it looks like I'm only going to give us half the answer by using around a tenth of the roofs in the US.
Conservation, nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind, biofuel, tidal energy, geothermal, more efficient uses of energy, etc. are going to have to find the other half.
Overall, I'm optimistic about our chances.
Population growth rate:
It's been falling since the 1960s and will continue to fall.
And if it doesn't, a bunch of poor people in countries with lousy governments are going to die. A tragedy but not the end of civilization.
India, Pakistan, Egypt, the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, the food importing parts of Central and South America. Those are the places that will suffer from physical shortages of food if population growth does not continue current trends.
Again, I believe that a global dieoff and the survival of modern civilization are not mutually exclusive. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1976 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale
Tyler_JC wrote:
When you add up ALL of the alternative sources, the solution to our energy crunch presents itself.
I've yet to read a convincing argument that such a combination will do it. We already have a combination of energy sources and most of those will peak in the coming decades.
I can see that hypothetically a combination could do the trick but I've yet to be convinced that this hypothesis will smoothly take us into a continued growth future, with no ramifications. Replacing oil will be an enormous task. Replacing natural gas will be an enormous task. Replacing coal will be an enormous task. I'm not sure that the human race is up to three enormous tasks and continuing our growth economy.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18Next
Page 1 of 18
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
