[bobcousins]

[...] people will be willing to put up with quite a lot of hardship in order to retain as much as possible of their current lifestyle.

We now have the most complex civilisation ever seen. I would therefore expect it to be able to take on all but the most extreme challenges to its existence, whether those challenges are environmental, internal or external.

I find these statements contradictory. If our consumerist lifestyle is what got us into trouble in the first place, how retaining it 'as much as possible' may allow us to adapt to changes ? You seem to equate complexity to adaptability, and I just can't agree with that. For example, if your statement was valid, all economists would ask for lots of regulations on world markets. In my experience, increased complexity leads to increased specialization which in turn leads to increased power, yes, but also increased fragility. Complex systems are more prone to chaotic behaviors than simpler ones.

You are basically correct, certainly in your conclusion. Some of my language was a bit sloppy for which I apologise. People are willing to make sacrifices in one area to get benefits in another. For example, we pay taxes and get education, health, roads, police etc. There is a conflict here, and instability comes when the sacrifice outweighs the benefits.

Tainters complexity refers to social complexity in terms of diversity of job specializations for example. Obviously its a difficult thing to quantify and Tainter leaves this a bit fuzzy. You are right, a socially complex society is not necessarily adaptable - a simpler socety is usually more adaptable. But a simpler society supports less people at a lower level of wealth - so people resist that as long as possible. There may not even be that alternative - with our current system of nation states you have little practical choice but to be a part of society.

I didn't mean to imply that we will necessarily be successful meeting the challenge. We will either adapt, or collapse. Because the stakes are so high, I believe that people will at least try to adapt.

I highly recommend Tainters book (The Collapse of Complex Societies), it explains things much better than I can.

[Ludi]

7 years of doubling of wind in the US would make wind the most significent source of power -

Worldwide, wind power has been doubling annually since the 1970s. Still, accounting for only a portion of that .8%.

No is hasn't - if it had, 1 turbine in the 1970s would now be over a billion turbines! 30 years of doubling ever year = 2^30 = 1,073,741,824

You're right, my mistake. It has increased about 50% annually since the '70s.

[Ludi]

According the IEA it’s about 10% of PRIMARY energy, renewable actually makes up around 23% of electrical production.

If you eliminate hydroelectric, alternative energy production is minimal (.8%).

Hydro IS renewable (according to the IEA) and it doesn’t always have to come from dammed sources

But worldwide, it is produced using dams.

2 billion people on the planet currently have no electricty, let alone use oil for cars.

And that's relevant exactly how? I'm trying to discuss how much energy is currently produced using alternative/renewable sources.

[Wildwell]

It's still renewable. 2 Billion People are relevant in the die off argument and future demand. The amount of renewables small ATM because it has been cheaper to use fossil fuels.

[Ludi]

So, when fossil fuels are no longer cheap (whatever that might be), then we will see renewables take over the large percentage of energy production, is that what you're saying, Wildwell?

For me, it's hard for me to believe in something I don't see much evidence for. I'm not arguing these things can't be done, I'm arguing that they aren't being done. Do you see the difference? Do you see the difference between actually doing something and merely talking about doing something?

[Wildwell]

So, when fossil fuels are no longer cheap (whatever that might be), then we will see renewables take over the large percentage of energy production, is that what you're saying, Wildwell?

For me, it's hard for me to believe in something I don't see much evidence for. I'm not arguing these things can't be done, I'm arguing that they aren't being done. Do you see the difference? Do you see the difference between actually doing something and merely talking about doing something?

I've seen things like 'renewables will create 50% of primary energy in the world by 2050' around the web. Whether it can be done or not is another matter, but fossil fuels are not due to run out for 100-500 years and you saw my post on nuclear.

But if you’re asking whether the hydrogen economy is a reality, I'd say no, at least without a few miracles.

[Ludi]

fossil fuels are not due to run out for 100-500 years

That's another bizarre red herring. I don't recall anyone claiming they will "run out" any time soon, if ever.....

I get the feeling I'm not really communicating with you here, Wildwell...

[Wildwell]

fossil fuels are not due to run out for 100-500 years

That's another bizarre red herring. I don't recall anyone claiming they will "run out" any time soon, if ever.....

I get the feeling I'm not really communicating with you here, Wildwell...

Substitition. As price rises fossils will be substituted for other things, they are cheap at the moment, so it’s not such an issue. The reason I mentioned fossil fuels is because if I didn’t someone is bound to point out ‘Ah well, you need fossil fuels to build a dam, nuclear power station etc’. There’s plenty of time to do it. The price is fairly irrelevant if the need and demand is there and it’s all relative anyway. Further price rises can be offset by further substitution.

[TrueKaiser]

windwell makes a good point. while some people(including all the gun nut survivalists here(glad i am not part of them)) panic. others will be either looking for or seting up other alternitive energy sources, basicly doing somthing and not panicing.

[Ludi]

But why aren't they doing something now?

[Duende]

Windwell wrote:

There’s plenty of time to do it.

Just think of all of the infrastructure we have that would have to be turned over to access yet unknown scalable energy source.

20 or 30 years ago, yes. Now...too late. (Fingers crossed for cold fusion.)

[Wildwell]

But why aren't they doing something now?

Because they are working to the IEA peak oil date.

[TrueKaiser]

But why aren't they doing something now?

Because they are working to the IEA peak oil date.

or they are caught up in trying to keep their heads above water int he current way of life to care, but a even more likely one is that the current mass media has dumbed them down enouogh to not understand thus ignore the concept of peak extration of oil.

[Ludi]

or they are caught up in trying to keep their heads above water int he current way of life to care, but a even more likely one is that the current mass media has dumbed them down enouogh to not understand thus ignore the concept of peak extration of oil.

But you said they would be looking for or setting up alternative energy sources instead of panicking. If they are "dumbed down" how will they suddenly understand the concept of peak oil? I don't see how your comment above relates to the one below, to which I was responding "why don't they do something now?" How will they go from not caring and being dumb to doing something and not panicking?

others will be either looking for or seting up other alternitive energy sources, basicly doing somthing and not panicing.

Anyway, it don't make no sense to me. I don't know what people are waiting for, why they aren't doing something now instead of later...

Maybe there's something to be said for "panicking" - at least it gets people to take action.

[TheTurtle]

I've seen things like 'renewables will create 50% of primary energy in the world by 2050' around the web. Whether it can be done or not is another matter ...

But will the amount of primary energy used in 2050 be on par with the amount used today?
If we let X represent the amount of energy used today and posit that the amount of energy used in 2050 will have dropped to ... let's say ... 1/10th of X, then saying that renewables will create 50% of .1X by 2050 isn't really too farfetched, is it?

[TheTurtle]

I also suspect that sometime within a century we'll develop either human level AI and/or mind-uploading, at which point biological humans will rapidly become irrelevant. These positions aren't terribly extreme when plotting human development, but they are too incredible it seems for most to contemplate. So I make my arguments from the position that technology can't change except in the very obvious ways.

Not too incredible, but EXTREMELY distasteful. (insert barfing emoticon here)

Despite his penname, The Turtle wishes to remain human. He views PO as a wake-up call for us all to remember what it means to be human and not as an opportunity to become bits of light rushing about on a silicon chip. Rushing about until the power is turned off, that is.

Ugh!

The extropian fantasy is most strange and seems to demonstrate a huge degree of disconnectedness.

NATURE ROOLZ ... NANOCHIPS DROOL! (to use the vernacular of the youngsters).

[Dezakin]

What do you think these things are made with... slave power ? machines need oil.

Which can be synthesized from biomass, limestone, or air and water given electricity as an input.

And its not that hard to imagine industrial equipment being mostly electrical either.

[georgann]

Has it ever occurred to anyone out there that the earth has many reasons why it is a livableand functional planet? We have focused on the ozone layer the trees and the wildlife effecting the weather, but have we thought or better yet have the oil driller companies tought) about the effects of the earth with in what it is derived from and what it needs to keep in the middle?????If we cannot put back into the this mother earth what we take out of it..., shouldn't we be scratching our heads at the fact that this earth might need it? It is so unbelievable what people do to change everything for those who were here first (animals) and their wildlife and just use this planet up and destroy any magical thing that might have something to do with this miracle in the first place.....hmmmmm what is more important....motorized transportation or the earth...you decide! And while you are at it think of our kids and their kids.!!!

[markam]

....motorized transportation or the earth...you decide

If I had to drive 20 miles to get to a job in order to feed my kids, motorized transportation is more important than the earth. Not even a contest.

Trust me, every single person on the earth feels that way. They feel that they, or someone they love, is more important that something stupid like the future of the planet.

We will only be able to save the planet if it is in the best interests of individual people to save the planet. The stakes have to get much, much higher before environmental concerns trump individual concerns.

[emersonbiggins]

If I had to drive 20 miles to get to a job in order to feed my kids...

How ironic, a notion that you must drive in order to feed your kids. Why? So they can grow up in a world without a future and spend their entire adult lives paying back the debts your generation has incurred against them? How thoughtful of you.