Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
rogerhb wrote:
jaws wrote:
Then it will have missed its role in the great project of civilization for which it was destined.
Oh dear, we aren't that special.
“Destined”, to me, implies something religious which causes my gag reflexes to go bonkers, but nonetheless, we are special, or if you prefer, gifted. The problem is we aren't so special as to toss aside all other life forms on this planet as being not special. There needs to be a better balance or else ultimately our special little asses will pay for it. “With great power comes great responsibility”.
We could have done a much better job of properly utilizing oil from the get-go. But when we discovered oil our main concern wasn’t, “gee we better make sure we use this properly so that in 100-200 years for now we don’t regret it”. “It was how do we use this stuff to make our lives better?” Hindsight is 20-20… the energy problems in our future will make that pretty evident to all. Hopefully we’ll have the opportunity to learn from it. _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
jaws wrote:
A middle ground must be found. Oil will come out and it will be depleted. All that we must resolve is what will be done with the oil, and where civilization will proceed after it is no longer oil-based.
I agree. And the middle ground, whatever it means in practice, will only be found when energy becomes much more dear and expensive. I've been reading Douglas Reynolds lately, an energy economist who has been writing and warning about depletion for years. [link]. He's got a few writings I've been looking at in particular: "The mineral economy: how prices and costs can falsely signal decreasing scarcity";' "Energy grades and historic economic growth;" and I just ordered a copy of his book "Scarcity and Growth Considering Oil and Energy: An Alternative Neo-Classical View."
Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 5315 Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
I would suggest that the vast majority of the world's population survives for weeks on end without ever actually "thinking".
Repeating the same schedule as the previous week, week in, week out, going to work, coming home, eating, sleeping following the routine, all of this can be done without ever actually "thinking".
Here I am not classing gut-reaction, intuition and following a routine as "thinking".
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
rogerhb wrote:
I would suggest that the vast majority of the world's population survives for weeks on end without ever actually "thinking".
Repeating the same schedule as the previous week, week in, week out, going to work, coming home, eating, sleeping following the routine, all of this can be done without ever actually "thinking".
I agree, and I would suggest that the reason for this partially is that the vast majority of people exist in environments that don't require them to "think". Or, rather, there is no benefit or payoff to "thinking". Even when a real problem is considered, like crime, war, bigotry, or disease, most people, I imagine, end up thinking that "these are problems for the police, governments, sociologists, and doctors to deal with, I have to get this report done, the breakfast made, the kids to soccer practice," ad nauseum.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Error messages from the economy
Quote:
Science's second law of thermodynamics - which predicted my chaotic heap of broken computer pieces - also predicts that when a system of any kind gets complicated you have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity. It correctly predicts that all organized systems eventually break down and become disorganized again. Everything from a house to a human body, from a bag of sugar to a spaceship, obeys this law. Time eventually makes organized things turn back into formless mush, and the best we can do is pump in increasing amounts of energy to hold the inevitable decay in check for a while.
Link _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Monte:
Oh, nooooooooo, not again!!!!!
Why do you have to mix your popular science ideas about entropy with everything???
Haven't enough people explained to you that you haven't got it right? Why can't you just leave the subject alone?
Have you noticed that the above article was NOT written by a scientist? The fact that your mistakes are shared doesn't mean that they aren't mistakes.
Once again: Entropy on the Earth is, in fact, slowly decreasing, thanks to the sun, which is a source of low entropy. Eventually (millions of years) it will increase again. But that doesn't worry us now, does it?
I seriously doubt that the effect of technology in our world makes a blip in the total amount of entropy on Earth. If it has some measurable effect, it will have more to do with agriculture and farming than with burning fossil fuels. The amount of fossil fuels that we burn is negligible in comparison with the amount of land we cultivate. And the way I see it, if you calculated the difference between the entropy of the Earth ten thousand years ago and now that it's cultivated, it could go either way. Don't tell me that there's less biodiversity: that doesn't count at all for entropy calculations. The amount of entropy has more to do with the type of molecules of the plants we cultivate in comparison with the rest and the density of vegetation now and then. It might well be that a field of wheat has less entropy than a forest, in which case, our technology has globally decreased entropy.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Doly wrote:
Monte:
Oh, nooooooooo, not again!!!!!
Why do you have to mix your popular science ideas about entropy with everything???
Haven't enough people explained to you that you haven't got it right? Why can't you just leave the subject alone?
Have you noticed that the above article was NOT written by a scientist? The fact that your mistakes are shared doesn't mean that they aren't mistakes.
Once again: Entropy on the Earth is, in fact, slowly decreasing, thanks to the sun, which is a source of low entropy. Eventually (millions of years) it will increase again. But that doesn't worry us now, does it?
I seriously doubt that the effect of technology in our world makes a blip in the total amount of entropy on Earth. If it has some measurable effect, it will have more to do with agriculture and farming than with burning fossil fuels. The amount of fossil fuels that we burn is negligible in comparison with the amount of land we cultivate. And the way I see it, if you calculated the difference between the entropy of the Earth ten thousand years ago and now that it's cultivated, it could go either way. Don't tell me that there's less biodiversity: that doesn't count at all for entropy calculations. The amount of entropy has more to do with the type of molecules of the plants we cultivate in comparison with the rest and the density of vegetation now and then. It might well be that a field of wheat has less entropy than a forest, in which case, our technology has globally decreased entropy.
Do you get it? No, I'm sure you don't.
I am afraid you don't get it.
Do you maintain that as a system gets complicated you don't have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity? Stop pouring in the energy through-puts and see how fast the paint peels.
We can't maintain our complexity with cheap fossil fuels.
And once again, for the millionth time, this is not about the thermodynamic equillibrium with space! _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Interesting posts. Good points & counterpoints. Just some of my own ramblings...
1 - peak oil is a geological fact
2 - peak oil is not an economic fact other than to say the economy will look different beyond hydrocarbon depletion than it does now
3 - do we mourn the disappearance of great cities & ancient societies before us? No.
4 - will anyone mourn the passing of suburbia? Only those affected directly, but afterwards? No.
5 - economics & finance don't matter as people keep telling me. is it useless concepts of paper IOUs and zeros & ones. smoke & mirrors as some would say.
6 - therefore when oil is gone and value is destroyed, does it matter?
7 - we will still have all the matter on earth as energy is neither created nor destroyed, we just won't have the hydrocarbons in their current form
8 - as someone said somewhere else, we can put cows in those big box stores like the ancients converted defense walls into cathedrals and vice versa
9 - will people die? yes, they always have
10 - will the natural world mourn the passing of the human race? No.
11 - if man disappears and his footprint along with him, will new species theoretically reproduce, mutate and create new species? over time quite likely
12 - does oil in the ground have any economic or useful value? No. the value added comes from extracting it and using it.
13 - will it matter to the world's survival when all the oil is depleted? No. It has been buried for millions of years and no one missed it until now.
14 - will the future look like the past? No.
15 - will it be better or worse? For whom? That depends on decisions made today. It could be universally better or universally worse or there may be some winners & some losers.
16 - Is it somehow natural that I should be capable of communicating with people all over the world in real-time using a series of zeros & ones? No.
17 - will it matter when I can no longer do this? No.
18 - will oil & its products become more expensive as they become scarcer? Expensive compared to what? we already said economics & finance are simply an illusion - smoke & mirrors.
19 - does it matter if energy alternatives cost 10X current sources of energy? No. If there is no alternative there is no alternative.
20 - will we use the cheapest alternatives first? Most likely.
21 - Can we affect the outcome or it is cast in stone? A little bit perhaps, but we cannot control everything with our big brains and our understanding of a small bit of the universe around us
_________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:49 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
MonteQuest wrote:
Do you maintain that as a system gets complicated you don't have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity?
"Effort" is not a physics concept. "Complicated" isn't clearly defined in physics. Things that you may think as complicated, like a computer, have less entropy than things you may think as simpler, like a steam locomotive. So your premise that high tech needs lots of energy is fundamentally flawed.
MonteQuest wrote:
Stop pouring in the energy through-puts and see how fast the paint peels.
1) Painting is about as complex as raining from the point of view of physics. From the point of view of entropy, the act of eating an apple is more significant than the act of painting a wall.
2) The speed at which paint peels depends on the nature of the paint and the nature of the surface. The energy it takes to repaint is pretty much the same in all cases. In fact, high-tech paint may catch on much better than cheap paint.
MonteQuest wrote:
We can't maintain our complexity with cheap fossil fuels.
That may or may not be correct. But if it happens to be true, that has absolutely nothing to do with entropy and lots to do with things like our current energy-wasteful lifestyle. High tech is not necessarily high energy tech. But you have convinced yourself of that, and use your misunderstanding of thermodinamics to justify it.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:39 am Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Doly wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Do you maintain that as a system gets complicated you don't have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity?
"Effort" is not a physics concept. "Complicated" isn't clearly defined in physics. Things that you may think as complicated, like a computer, have less entropy than things you may think as simpler, like a steam locomotive. So your premise that high tech needs lots of energy is fundamentally flawed.
I see you avoided answering my question.
Fundamentally flawed? 2nd law states that anytime enrgy is transformed from one form to another, there is a loss. The more complex a technology, the more energy transfers=more loss or an increase in entropy. "Complicated" defined by physics. To hold this entropy at bay, you must use even more energy, and in doing so, you increase entropy even more. You cannot win.
The entropy created to make the computer you seem to dismiss. We gain short-term utility of the computer at the expense of more chaos.
MonteQuest wrote:
Stop pouring in the energy through-puts and see how fast the paint peels.
Quote:
1) Painting is about as complex as raining from the point of view of physics. From the point of view of entropy, the act of eating an apple is more significant than the act of painting a wall.
2) The speed at which paint peels depends on the nature of the paint and the nature of the surface. The energy it takes to repaint is pretty much the same in all cases. In fact, high-tech paint may catch on much better than cheap paint.
I guess analogies escape you? Peeling paint is the result of 2nd law.
MonteQuest wrote:
We can't maintain our complexity with cheap fossil fuels.
Quote:
That may or may not be correct. But if it happens to be true, that has absolutely nothing to do with entropy and lots to do with things like our current energy-wasteful lifestyle. High tech is not necessarily high energy tech. But you have convinced yourself of that, and use your misunderstanding of thermodinamics to justify it.
And it has everything to do with entropy. We are approaching watershed events where the complexity of the systems is so great we cannot afford to maintain them. We continue to go ever farther into debt to hold the chaos at bay, pushing the time to pay the piper ever farther into the future. 2nd law predicts this. Water does not flow uphill. Energy moves from a usable state to an unusable state. We can never catch up, and especially so when the cost of the energy necessary to "keep the paint from peeling" goes up, not to mention, becomes scarce and induces global warming.
I think I have a firm grasp of thermodynamics, as well as logical entropy, which people seem to dismiss as not applicable.
High tech breeds increases in effciency which breeds more consumption and more complexity. The world works 180 degrees from what people think. Surburbia, with all it's order, designed streets and houses, is chaos compared to a vacant lot of grass.
The sun maintains the grass, fossil fuels maintain surburbia. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
Doly wrote:
Do you get it? No, I'm sure you don't.
And I would question your admonishment of my science acumen.
Doly wrote:
Create a global dimming effect that compensates for the greenhouse effect of CO2. The most environmentally friendly way I can think of doing this is creating more clouds by boiling water.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
MonteQuest wrote:
And it has everything to do with entropy. We are approaching watershed events where the complexity of the systems is so great we cannot afford to maintain them. We continue to go ever farther into debt to hold the chaos at bay, pushing the time to pay the piper ever farther into the future. 2nd law predicts this. Water does not flow uphill. Energy moves from a usable state to an unusable state. We can never catch up, and especially so when the cost of the energy necessary to "keep the paint from peeling" goes up, not to mention, becomes scarce and induces global warming.
That is just psuedo-scientific nonsense! Monte makes the least amount of sense when he starts talking about entropy. Sorry Monte, but writing this sort of stuff makes you sound like a fool. At best, you are trying to apply laws of physics where they are not valid. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Energy, Economics and Entropy.
bobcousins wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
And it has everything to do with entropy. We are approaching watershed events where the complexity of the systems is so great we cannot afford to maintain them. We continue to go ever farther into debt to hold the chaos at bay, pushing the time to pay the piper ever farther into the future. 2nd law predicts this. Water does not flow uphill. Energy moves from a usable state to an unusable state. We can never catch up, and especially so when the cost of the energy necessary to "keep the paint from peeling" goes up, not to mention, becomes scarce and induces global warming.
That is just psuedo-scientific nonsense! Monte makes the least amount of sense when he starts talking about entropy. Sorry Monte, but writing this sort of stuff makes you sound like a fool. At best, you are trying to apply laws of physics where they are not valid.
So, you too maintain that as a system gets complicated you don't have to pour in energy and effort to maintain the complexity? And energy does not move from a usable state to an unusable state and increases with complexity of a system?
So, you insist that our complex system does not require vast amounts of energy throughputs to hold entropy at bay?
Maintenance costs nothing? Who's sounding like a fool? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
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
