[davep]

Whether we want to sustain the world's population with such techno-fixes is another question. But if those fixes are genuinely sustainable, then we can say that the carrying capacity of the earth is higher than it would be without them.

According to the leading pherologists, the earth's carrying capacity is about 2 to 3 billion people using sustainable systems.

Techno-fixes help sustain overshoot.

Using wood fires would have been seen as a techno-fix at one point in human history. Pray tell why other sustainable yet non-implemented energy sources would be considered techno-fixes yet wood wouldn't? Surely any methodology where allowability is based upon whether a sustainable solution has already been implemented or not is flawed?

[MonteQuest]

So the report can be dismissed because it didn't look at sustainables at all. Therefore it is nothing more than myopic crystal ball gazing.

Renewable energy sources provide us with electricity, not liquid fuels.

It was not looked at because it is inconsequential to the demand for liquid fuels, as well as not scalable.

In Chapter VI we describe available mitigation options and related
implementation issues. We limit our considerations to technologies that are near ready or currently commercially available for immediate deployment. Clearly, accelerated research and development holds promise for other options.
However, the challenge related to extensive near-term oil shortages will require deployment of currently viable technologies, which is our focus.

[MonteQuest]

Well obviously not, if

“The sun provides the Earth with more energy in an hour than the globe consumes in fossil energy in a year.”
- James Barber, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College, London

Can't pour that into a gas tank.

[MonteQuest]

Whether we want to sustain the world's population with such techno-fixes is another question. But if those fixes are genuinely sustainable, then we can say that the carrying capacity of the earth is higher than it would be without them.

According to the leading pherologists, the earth's carrying capacity is about 2 to 3 billion people using sustainable systems.

Techno-fixes help sustain overshoot.

Using wood fires would have been seen as a techno-fix at one point in human history.

Yes, but we weren't in overshoot then, or as badly.

If you are living beyond your means, is the best solution a new loan?

[davep]

So the report can be dismissed because it didn't look at sustainables at all. Therefore it is nothing more than myopic crystal ball gazing.

Renewable energy sources provide us with electricity, not liquid fuels.

It was not looked at because it is inconsequential to the demand for liquid fuels, as well as not scalable.

But as the EV1 showed, electricity CAN replace liquid fuels, if vested interests aren't allowed to hold sway.

Scalability depends entirely on how it is implemented for solar. There is more than enough energy available.

So again, on both counts it can be seen as myopic crystal ball gazing.

[davep]

Can't pour that into a gas tank.

But you can drive an electric car with it.

[davep]

Whether we want to sustain the world's population with such techno-fixes is another question. But if those fixes are genuinely sustainable, then we can say that the carrying capacity of the earth is higher than it would be without them.

According to the leading pherologists, the earth's carrying capacity is about 2 to 3 billion people using sustainable systems.

Techno-fixes help sustain overshoot.

Using wood fires would have been seen as a techno-fix at one point in human history.

Yes, but we went in overshoot then, or as badly.

If you are living beyond your means, is the best solution a new loan?

It's not a loan if it's being paid for every month. Wood can be sustainable, it just hasn't been in a lot of geographies. With solar, you can't get into debt.

Please explain what these pherologists do allow in their savant calculations.

[davep]

I've got to go to bed. Mrs P is concerned that my posting habits aren't sustainable and are inconsequential.

[MonteQuest]

Can't pour that into a gas tank.

But you can drive an electric car with it.

We don't have but a few electric cars. We also don't have the transmission capacity to deliver the increased electrical demand.

Clearly, advancements in energy efficiency and replacement in this capital stock (for instance, electrichybrid
engines) would help mitigate the economic impacts of rising oil prices caused by world oil peaking. However, as described, the normal replacement rates of this equipment will require 10-20 years and cost trillions of dollars. We cannot conceive of any affordable government-sponsored "crash program" to accelerate normal replacement schedules so as to incorporate higher energy efficiency technologies into the privately-owned transportation sector; significant improvements in energy efficiency will thus be inherently time-consuming (of the order of a decade or more).

[MonteQuest]

It's not a loan if it's being paid for every month. Wood can be sustainable, it just hasn't been in a lot of geographies. With solar, you can't get into debt.

Yes, but we are in debt. And techno-fixes will just put us deeper into debt and make the bankruptcy worse.

Please explain what these pherologists do allow in their savant calculations.

Read my scenario on the die-off thread. There are links to all the current studies showing the metrics used.

[davep]

Can't pour that into a gas tank.

But you can drive an electric car with it.

We don't have but a few electric cars. We also don't have the transmission capacity to deliver the increased electrical demand.

There are plenty of conversion kits on the market. For transmission capacity, how about modular batteries that get carted off to generation plants (or at least areas with access to the high wattage required). Or how about local generation?

Clearly, advancements in energy efficiency and replacement in this capital stock (for instance, electrichybrid
engines) would help mitigate the economic impacts of rising oil prices caused by world oil peaking. However, as described, the normal replacement rates of this equipment will require 10-20 years and cost trillions of dollars. We cannot conceive of any affordable government-sponsored "crash program" to accelerate normal replacement schedules so as to incorporate higher energy efficiency technologies into the privately-owned transportation sector; significant improvements in energy efficiency will thus be inherently time-consuming (of the order of a decade or more).

Significant improvements in energy efficiency can be achieved right now by adopting european standards.

As for replacement costing trillions, so will the next generation of cars anyway.

[MonteQuest]

Scalability depends entirely on how it is implemented for solar. There is more than enough energy available.

Yes, trouble is we haven't yet learned how to capture it economically or in a scalable manner. And when we do, we are going to be starting from such a small base, that it will still be just a few percent of our energy needs 25 years into the future.

[davep]

It's not a loan if it's being paid for every month. Wood can be sustainable, it just hasn't been in a lot of geographies. With solar, you can't get into debt.

Yes, but we are in debt. And techno-fixes will just put us deeper into debt and make the bankruptcy worse.

I think you're stretching your analogy until it hurts. Techno-fixes that are sustainable will not put us deeper in debt. They may have environmental impacts, but nothing compared to the mess that currently needs clearing up.

Please explain what these pherologists do allow in their savant calculations.

Read my scenario on the die-off thread. There are links to all the current studies showing the metrics used.

I will, but not right now (it's a biggie). If you don't allow for extra solar energy in the mix (as in the government report cited above) then the results are spurious no matter what.

[davep]

Scalability depends entirely on how it is implemented for solar. There is more than enough energy available.

Yes, trouble is we haven't yet learned how to capture it economically or in a scalable manner. And when we do, we are going to be starting from such a small base, that it will still be just a few percent of our energy needs 25 years into the future.

A two-axis parabolic dish with a tracker can be cobbled together for peanuts. I've had a bit of a eureka moment as far as stirling energy is concerned that may help cheap sustainable electricity. Of course, this is not currently available, but waiting for governments to act is pointless. Waiting for big business's engineers is equally pointless as they tend to go for maximum efficiency, whereas I'm looking for maximum cost efficiency and easy access to materials.

This kind of technology can be used for improving the distributed model of the grid. It can also be used in refrigeration without going via electricity.

I'm sure my efforts will be eclipsed very rapidly. But the point is that these things could be produced very cheaply indeed.

[MonteQuest]

There are plenty of conversion kits on the market. For transmission capacity, how about modular batteries that get carted off to generation plants (or at least areas with access to the high wattage required). Or how about local generation?

One word.

Scale.

Transport batteries to be charged?

Using what energy source?

[davep]

Transport batteries to be charged?

Using what energy source?

I did follow it with "local generation" as an option though

[MonteQuest]

It's not a loan if it's being paid for every month. Wood can be sustainable, it just hasn't been in a lot of geographies. With solar, you can't get into debt.

Yes, but we are in debt. And techno-fixes will just put us deeper into debt and make the bankruptcy worse.

I think you're stretching your analogy until it hurts. Techno-fixes that are sustainable will not put us deeper in debt.

But they will allow us to continue to live beyond our means; be in overshoot. We must cut up our credit cards, sell that big car, return the plasma screen TV, and then reduce our energy consumption and population.

If you don't allow for extra solar energy in the mix (as in the government report cited above) then the results are spurious no matter what.

Solar/wind is less than 1% of the world's primary energy.

It will not matter.

[davep]

Solar/wind is less than 1% of the world's primary energy.

It will not matter.

The first statement is current tense, the second is future. It doesn't follow that because it is currently less than one percent it shall always remain thus.

[MonteQuest]

A two-axis parabolic dish with a tracker can be cobbled together for peanuts.

Oh, I'm sure much will be "cobbled" together. At the local and individual level is where we will see the most gains..but they will not run civilization as we know it today.

[MonteQuest]

Solar/wind is less than 1% of the world's primary energy.

It will not matter.

The first statement is current tense, the second is future. It doesn't follow that because it is currently less than one percent it shall always remain thus.

Never said it would, however...

Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

The EIA projects the renewable share of world installed electrical capacity falls from 23 percent in 2003 to 22 percent in 2030.

You must remember that the demand for energy is growing exponentially from a huge base.