Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 22, 2019
Richard Heinberg: The House is on Fire
A: The house is on fire!
B: You sound so shrill. Can’t you say something witty or insightful?
A: How about this: The house is on fire!
C: We’re never going to be able to do anything about the house until we defeat capitalism first.
A: But the house is on fire NOW! If we don’t do something right away, we’ll all die!
D: You liberals are always saying the house is on fire. Fire is what makes our house economy work. Putting out the fire would be bad for business, and business creates jobs. Just simmer down.
A: But it’s really true! Can’t you feel the heat?
E: The world is so unfair. Underprivileged people are always the first ones to feel the heat. We should devote all our efforts to overcoming prejudice and inequality. That’s the most important thing.
A: But can’t we do that WHILE we do something about the fire?
F: You’re just scaring everyone. I’ve lived in this house all my life and we’ve had problems, but we always overcame them. The most important thing is to have an optimistic attitude.
A: Ack! I’d leave, but so many people are blocking the door. We’re all in this together, and the house is on fire! Can’t somebody do something?
G: It’s really tiring to hear you bleat on about fire. Nobody’s going to listen to you until you find fire solutions that offer everyone tangible benefits in their lives—more jobs, a stronger economy, higher corporate profits, better national security. It’s your negative framing that’s the problem.
A: No, the problem is that the house is on fire! Maybe there’s a window I could get to, if only there weren’t so many people in here. Seems like it’s getting more crowded all the time.
H: Have you seen Engorged? It’s the new streaming channel with 200 billion hours of entertainment—movies, music, sports—that lets you peer through other people’s devices to watch them watching whatever you’re watching. It’s so cool!
A: I think there’s a window over there… but I’m getting awfully hot. And it’s so crowded I can’t move.
* * *
Life in the early phases of civilizational collapse is filled with absurdities that beg for artful satire. Where is Franz Kafka when we need him? Surely, he could offer a better metaphor than my hackneyed image of a house fire. But maybe it will do for now.
Of course, fire in this scenario is a stand-in for climate change—and actually for much more as well, as I’ll discuss in a moment. First let’s unpack the more obvious meanings.
My recent co-author (and go-to energy guru) David Fridley reminded me the other day that nearly everything we use represents a little fire somewhere—usually several of them. Your smart phone? Little fires drove the machines that extracted the raw minerals. Bigger fires smelted the metals. Little fires fueled the vehicles that transported all the parts, sometimes for thousands of miles. More little fires heated, cooled, and powered the various warehouses and assembly plants involved. Pick any object: unless it’s a tree or other feature of the natural environment, a fire is implicated. The same is typically true for services—keeping us warm, cool, and provisioned with food, health care, and education. We even need fires to make solar panels and wind turbines (for example: 3,000-degree-Fahrenheit furnace fires that run 24/7 are used to make pure silicon wafers for photovoltaic panels). Granted, over its lifetime a PV panel will entail less fire than a coal or natural gas power plant producing the same amount of electricity. But if we wanted to make a hell of a lot of PV panels right away in order to replace all our coal or gas power plants, enormous short-term fires would have to be stoked.
The bind we’re in is this: it is the economy—made up of all those billions of fires—that is causing climate change. Reconfiguring the economy so that it doesn’t cause climate change is currently almost completely a matter of theory, and, even if it is practically possible, represents a job of unprecedented scope and scale that would require nearly unheard-of political solidarity and almost incalculably massive investment and sacrifice (those “affordable energy transition” studies notwithstanding).
Meanwhile, most people are directly dependent on the economy for their survival. Thus, economic contraction or collapse (resulting either from climate change, or from efforts to avert climate change by radically reducing energy use, or from depletion of resources like oil, or even from some entirely foreseeable socioeconomic calamity like a massive debt default or terminal political dysfunction caused by increasing levels of inequality) would itself be traumatic. And for many people (certainly not all!), economic trauma might come sooner and be more direct and devastating than trauma from rising seas, droughts, floods, wildfires, and the other anticipated consequences of global warming.
So, of course, most people are cautious. They hesitate to go along with bold climate “solutions”—which might only somewhat blunt the climate crisis even if they were fully implemented—even though, by not taking climate action, they are further ensuring economic collapse by a different route. Although the house is on fire, very few people are willing to contemplate the kinds of bold programs that would be needed to douse the deadly conflagration. And meanwhile there are so many distractions to amuse, confound, and enrage us!—including political intrigue, seductive new technologies, and entertainment options up the wazoo.
This is the very definition of a wicked problem. I wish I had a nice solution.
As mentioned above, the problem extends beyond climate change. These days one should be just as concerned about vanishing biodiversity—the latest, and in some respects most worrisome symptom of which is the “insect apocalypse.” A recent series of studies informs us that insect populations that have been studied are losing about 2.4 percent of total biomass annually, with about 40 percent of all insects already gone. A paper by Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys concludes that climate change is only one of four major causes—which also (and more critically) include habitat loss due to expansion of industrial agriculture, pollution from synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and biological factors such as pathogens and introduced species. If the insects go, we all go, eventually—as a result of ecological, economic, and ultimately social impacts and feedbacks.
Then there’s the deoxygenation of the oceans; the buildup of synthetic chemical pollution (partly from the breakdown of plastics) in the tissues of animals, including humans; phosphorus depletion; deforestation; and still the list goes on.
Under the circumstances, anyone who is even dimly conscious should be yelling, “The house is on fire!” And more people are doing so all the time. The latest example is the “extinction rebellion,” an international social movement that aims to use nonviolent protest to drive radical change, with the goal of averting climate change and further students are striking school for climate action—ditching classes and attending climate change demonstrations instead. After all, why sit obediently in rows to learn how to live in a civilization that’s doomed?
So, what are we who are yelling “fire” trying to persuade everyone else to do? Some activists say we need to get rid of capitalism, but that effort has been under way since the mid-19th century and shows little sign of progress. Others say we need to create plans for ending climate change that would also simultaneously create jobs, more social equity, and corporate profits. Such plans are relatively easy to reverse engineer: start with the happy ending, then work backward. But all the ones that I’ve seen so far rely on major inputs of pixie dust and magic in order to achieve their goals.
The only sure solution is to start putting out fires—which, in terms of our metaphor, would mean shrinking the economy. That further translates to reducing the number of people on the planet (gradually—no genocide!) as well as the per capita rate of consumption (efforts along these lines would concentrate on the high-consuming countries). Our goal would be a sustainable and equitable level of consumption for all. But the constituency for doing that is tiny. And doing it without unleashing utter economic bedlam would require rethinking everything about how the economy currently works.
We at Post Carbon Institute have settled on the strategy of helping build community resilience in the face of impending civilizational collapse. I have colleagues outside of PCI who say that national and global action is essential to avert the worst; they still hope to convince the plutocrats and bureaucrats of the world to stage some spectacular intervention. But if the latter effort doesn’t work, then grassroots community resilience building truly is the last, best fallback strategy. Theoretically, if done well (using permaculture principles), it could aid with reforestation and biodiversity protection. But at this late date there can be no guarantees.
All we know for sure is that the house is on fire.
What a Waste
Our modern industrial economy traces a straight line from resource extraction to manufacturing to sales to waste disposal. Since Earth has finite resources and limited ability to absorb pollution, the straight-line economy is unsustainable; it is designed for eventual failure.
Why not make the economy circular, with waste from one process feeding into other production processes, thus dramatically reducing the need both for resource extraction and for the dumping of rubbish? We should mimic nature: it’s a central ideal of the ecology movement, with roots in indigenous wisdom worldwide. Doing so requires that we reduce, reuse, repair, and recycle—and replace nonrenewable resources with renewables wherever possible.
The circular economy is needed now more than ever. America alone currently produces almost 235 million tonnes of waste per year from homes and businesses, which works out to almost 4 kilograms per person per day. But that’s only 3 percent of all the solid waste in the US economy; the other 97 percent is generated by agricultural and industrial (e.g., mining and manufacturing) processes. If the total US waste stream (including wastewater) is allotted on a per capita basis, each American is responsible for 1.8 million kilograms of waste per year.
Only about a third of waste from homes and businesses is recycled; the rate for industrial waste is much lower, with only 2 percent of the total waste stream currently being recycled. Meanwhile, the 2,000 active landfills in the US that hold the bulk of household trash are reaching their capacity. The US is among the highest waste-producing nations of the world on a per-capita basis, and the federal government has no strategy for dealing with the problem.
Americans should recycle more. Doing so would reduce pollution, slow climate change, and mitigate resource depletion and habitat destruction from mining and logging. But, sadly, the recycling industry faces problems. Prices for scrap metals and paper have declined in recent years (though Trump’s trade war has helped domestic scrap metal prices recover somewhat), and China is no longer interested in accepting metal and plastic waste from the US.
The bigger, systemic challenge is that collecting waste in tiny, mixed amounts; transporting it to a handling facility; sorting it; cleaning it; repackaging it; and then transporting it again almost always costs more and requires more energy than just discarding the stuff into a local landfill.
Waste is what economists call an externality: it’s never an intended, and often not a priced component of the production process, though it does inevitably impose costs—which are often borne by society as a whole. Manufacturers’ mandate is to produce more, and this translates to the strategy of planned obsolescence—making products that are meant to be replaced quickly rather than being endlessly reused and repaired.
What’s needed to circularize the economy? Two things.
First, an overall systemic commitment to the project. That means buy-in from industry, government, and citizens. Make things in such a way that recycling is easier. Focus on extending producer responsibility. Automobile manufacturers, for example, already use a wide range of recycled materials in their products, and like to take credit for doing so. But making the auto industry truly circular will require participation throughout the entire supply chain, support from government via incentives and regulation, and consumer education. Other industries, such as consumer electronics, lag far behind the auto makers, so there is truly an enormous task ahead.
But the other thing we need to do will be an even bigger challenge: we need to ditch the growth imperative. As long as profit maximization and overall growth are the implicit goals of the economy, recycling will remain a boutique industry driven largely by relatively rich people who can afford to assuage their ecological consciences.
If we are to have a truly ecological materials flow, we must start with Natural Step principles. No using renewable resources at faster than replenishment. No drawing down nonrenewable resources. No polluting ecosystems with products or byproducts of industrial processes.
A truly circular economy will be one in which all industrial processes are harmless to people and nature. That means that all “growth” will have to occur in the cultural sphere rather than in flows of materials and energy. We must focus on human happiness rather than GDP; on rates of participation in education and the arts rather than quarterly sales figures.
Currently, we are far from having a circular economy, and that gap is embodied in overflowing landfills and giant barges of trash with nowhere to go—as well as a plastic gyre the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean. Will the monuments to our civilization consist of mountains of refuse? We can certainly do far better, but that will require us to make a systemic commitment to building a circular, steady-state economy whose aim is beauty and happiness rather than growth for growth’s sake.
172 Comments on "Richard Heinberg: The House is on Fire"
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 2:59 pm
Richard has discovered climate change.
In the good old days he claimed that we should not worry too much about global warming, since the world is running out of fossil fuel anyway.
Apparently that’s no longer the case according to Richard, and indeed, it isn’t.
Davy on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 3:21 pm
“In the good old days he claimed that we should not worry too much about global warming, since the world is running out of fossil fuel anyway.“
More empty cloggo comments. Got a reference?
Peak Pessimism on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:23 pm
Actually heard a similar sentiment on a recent GrowBusters [1] podcast referencing an accademic paper co-wrote by the same [2]. I think the authors are underestimating just how far cheap money (debt), gunboat deplomacy, and loose environmental regulations can extend the Age of Oil.
[1] https://www.growthbusters.org/running-out-of-gas-podcast-episode-26/
[2] The influence of constrained fossil fuel emissions scenarios on climate and water resources (see link 1 for URL)
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:25 pm
“Got a reference?”
Sure, browse the comments on this board of 7 years ago.
Dementia running in the family, perchance?
Davy on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:28 pm
“Got a reference?”
You like to put words in others mouth which makes you fraudulent.
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:38 pm
“Got a reference?”
http://richardheinberg.com/museletter-303-climate-change-isnt-our-biggest-environmental-problem-and-why-technology-wont-save-us
“Climate Change Isn’t Our Biggest Environmental Problem”
If you believe that the world is running out of fossil fuel soon, than the conclusion “not to worry about fossil-fuel-induced climate change”, makes sense indeed.
Heinberg no longer believes what he lectured in 2011.
Now he jumped on the climate change bandwaggon.
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:39 pm
“You like to put words in others mouth which makes you fraudulent.”
It looks like your memory is failling you.
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:50 pm
Clogg
As Brexit remains in limbo, Yale’s Stephen Roach says the ‘imperfect’ EU may not survive
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/stephen-roach-on-future-of-european-union-brexit-global-economy.html
Don’t worry we will pick sweep up the crumbs just like after WW2..I cant wait to see BMW and Volkswagen moving offshore to America..
LOL
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 4:54 pm
CLogg
Nobody has ever said the world is going to ‘run out’ of fossil fuels..They have said its going to ‘run short’..
Don’t you ever tired of straw mans?
At least Heinberg allows free speech and comments on his blog..Unlike you..
LOL
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:00 pm
Look mob, no need to go to reddit. Here even you and empire dave can understand what exactly happened in 1941 in Russia:
http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
Ron Unz is a jew, so it is true.lol
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:05 pm
Here, the greatest Briton alive today:
https://youtu.be/RQOJvyhI6R8
I had the privilege to shake his hand twice, once in London and once in Holland.
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:16 pm
BREAKING!! Mueller Report is on its way..
Anonymous on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:29 pm
“Let’s make some noise (ho)
Let’s make some noise come on
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
(We don’t need no water, let the motherfucker burn)
(Burn, motherfucker, burn)
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
(We don’t need no water, let the motherfucker burn)
(Burn, motherfucker, burn)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vv_LwwwpmU
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:32 pm
“BREAKING!! Mueller Report is on its way..”
Witchhunt.
Nothing problematic about US and Russian officials talking to each other.
makati1 on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:34 pm
Cloggie, did you notice that when you corner the Missouri Mule/Davy, he switches to MOB? LOL
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:41 pm
Report from the Special Counsel Investigation into Russian Interference During and Before the 2016 Presidential Election
https://www.scribd.com/document/402800029/Report-from-the-Special-Counsel-Investigation-into-Russian-Interference-During-and-Before-the-2016-Presidential-Election?fbclid=IwAR1J64mLFvZYp5S7cFYCEIGJJ_A8yl40mdPU3uIUd4LJoXtTYTFobu1gc2A
Holy Shit! This means war!
makati1 on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:48 pm
“Little fires drove the machines that extracted the raw minerals. Bigger fires smelted the metals. Little fires fueled the vehicles that transported all the parts, sometimes for thousands of miles. More little fires heated, cooled, and powered the various warehouses and assembly plants involved…”
That is only part of the story of most everything we consume. It is a good description of why there will never be a 100% renewable world until billions die and we go back to muscle power. But, I think it is too late even for that. We have a “fire” burning that is now self fueling [melting permafrost(methane release), ocean clathrate (methane) release, tectonic plates lifting/sinking due to changes in ocean levels that will set off volcanoes and earthquakes, etc.] It looks like all we can do is ride the train off the cliff of extinction. We will likely be the last generation of humans to experience a “good life”. Enjoy!
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:52 pm
Jeremy Corbyn is favorite to be the next prime minister, bookies say
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-theresa-may-brexit-next-prime-minster-odds-bookies-a8834791.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553257262
Bernie wins in 2020 and then Corbyn!
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 5:53 pm
BBC suggests that Mueller has nothing and no indictment will follow.
The enite affair is a bad joke and rooted in the desire to demonize Russia.
Fortunately, the US is now cornered by Eurasia.
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 6:18 pm
Vladimir Putin’s so-called missile with unlimited range is too expensive for the Kremlin – and has yet to fly farther than 22 miles
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/putins-missile-with-unlimited-range-is-too-expensive-and-hasnt-flown-more-than-22-miles.html?__source=facebook%7Cmain&fbclid=IwAR0S8_50ofgPJ_wD4tbPw-8UP8gDnqGQ8HYfpdxYDxzuxtJwK2Y3viyf5PE
What a joke..Russia is all bark and no teeth..
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 6:27 pm
cnbc: “Currently, the United States does not have a defense against hypersonic weapons, which can travel at least five times the speed of sound, or about one mile per second.”
Russia and China both have these weapons. The Burevestnik can be missed.
The Emperor has no clothes.lol
DerHundistLos on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 8:23 pm
Heinberg reflects my sentiments perfectly. The infuriating part is we are all forced to live and die in the same world. Too bad we don’t have a choice to live on one of two worlds. All choices are final.
Option I: A Trumptardian paradise where every square inch of the earth’s surface is converted into money.
Option II: Live with less in order to live another day.
DerHundistLos on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 8:25 pm
Addendum to Option II:
Mandatory population control. All births are regulated according to the carrying capacity of the world.
DerHundistLos on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 8:29 pm
“Nothing problematic about US and Russian officials talking to each other.” ~~The world according to Clogged.
Clogged, you are so disingenuous. Is this your attempt at humor or do you honestly believe we are that dumb?
DMyers on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 9:47 pm
“….the United States does not have a defense against hypersonic weapons…” Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 6:27 pm
Cloggie, I would not choose to oppose your proposition here. But it assumes that you know all the weapons that the US has. They have not necessarily revealed their entire weapons cache.
Take 9/11/01, for example. The Twin Towers did not pancake or explode. They were simply turned into dust in their entirety. This is apparent from any review of the video (See Dr. Judy Wood “Where Did The Towers Go?” video). This weapon that turned two massive towers to dust has not been revealed to us, except by our inferences from the public record of 9/11.
There may be much more than we have been made privy to. There is some indication that this is true. I’m not saying we’ll win the war, but we will gain every advantage possible from our penchant for deception. We bring out our big guns in a strategy of surprise.
makati1 on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 10:07 pm
DMyers, the US has no “secret weapons” or they would be in their Weapons Catalog that they send to countries to make money. The US has nothing but outdated, obsolete protection for the US mainland. The ICBM systems still use floppies, for gawd sake! Floppies in the age of super computers!
“The report says the Pentagon is planning to replace its floppy systems — which currently coordinate intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft — by the end of 2017.” (2016) Bet they still use them. Nothing changes that fast in DC.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/pentagon-floppy-disks-nuclear/index.html
“America’s feared nuclear missile facilities are still controlled by computers from the 1960s and floppy disks” (2019)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614323/Americas-feared-nuclear-missile-facilities-controlled-computers-1960s-floppy-disks.html
How safe do you feel now? The US has nothing to compete with Russia’s new missiles and systems or they would be trying to sell them to Russia’s customers. Hell, the US cannot even build a new type of airplane or aircraft carrier that works. A trillion dollars a year for junk. LMAO!
JuanO The Liar on Fri, 22nd Mar 2019 10:51 pm
“I’m not saying we’ll win the war, but we will gain every advantage possible from our penchant for deception. We bring out our big guns in a strategy of surprise.”
If Dr. Wood’s hypotheses is correct, then that weapon was used against the American people. Not for WE, but for THEM. They are obviously not on our side.
makati1 on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 12:45 am
Seems American “food security” is being washed away. Food prices going up. Bankruptcy going up. Debt going up. The only growth in America is debt. And, maybe, stupidity.
“Government Warns Of Historic, Widespread Flooding “Through May” – Food Prices To Skyrocket As 1000s Of Farms Are Destroyed”
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/government-warns-of-historic-widespread-flooding-through-may-food-prices-to-skyrocket-as-1000s-of-farms-are-destroyed
“Roughly 70% of all produce sold in the U.S. has pesticide residue in it, even after it is washed, according to a new report from the Guardian. According to data from the US Department of Agriculture and analyzed by the Environmental Working Group, strawberries, spinach and kale have the heaviest pesticide presence, while sweetcorn, avocados and pineapples had the lowest presence.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-21/not-so-superfood-pesticide-residue-found-70-us-produce-92-kale
“18 Statistics That Prove That America Has Become An “Idiocracy”
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/18-statistics-that-prove-that-america-has-become-an-idiocracy
SLIP SLIDIN’ …
Cloggie on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 1:49 am
“Cloggie, I would not choose to oppose your proposition here. But it assumes that you know all the weapons that the US has.”
DMyers, I’m no weapons expert, renewable energy is more my expertise. I was merely quoting CNBC, after my favorite enemy mobster tried to canibalize said article for his purpose. I have no doubt that the US has potent missiles too. My whole point is that in a real war between the big guys, missiles play a decisive role. The Falkland’s war is my favorite template. “2nd world country” Argentina would have beaten the UK, IF they would have had a few extra French-made Exocet missiles, which shuttle diplomat Alexander Haig knew to prevent, despite the fact that the US historically has little patience with European empires, especially with the British one (“special relationship”.lol
https://images.app.goo.gl/HUfr3vQinFev3VZA9
)
and the US had quietly more sympathy with Argentina.
To some it up: those parties who volunteer to be the “policeman of the world” are at a distinct disadvantage because in order to perform “duty”, they need means to “project power” (Davy’s favorite phrase), read navy/airforce. And precisely these means have become impotent. For the first time in history, the defenders dominate, if you follow my line of reasoning. The US is stuck with an enormous expensive military, designed and intended for imperial global conquest, she essentially can’t use against Russia or China.
For a revanchist European like me, that’s a satisfactory state of affairs.
Cloggie on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 2:00 am
“Nothing problematic about US and Russian officials talking to each other.” ~~The world according to Clogged.
Clogged, you are so disingenuous. Is this your attempt at humor or do you honestly believe we are that dumb?
Hound, You are just as lightweight as empire dave.
You launch an insult, but you omit to make an argument.
Why is it bad if the Trump campaign had discussions with Russian diplomats? Trump was open about that he wanted to “get along with Russia”.
But notoriously warmongering Democrats like you (WW1, WW2) and your hero mobster can’t let go of the idea of demonizing Russia, in the hope to reconquor it 1991-style, the last missing piece of the NWO.
Too bad for you, not going to happen. This time it is you who is going down.
#CW2
I AM THE MOB on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 4:08 am
CLogg
The last missing piece of the NWO…You are paranoid whack job..
Keep boot licking the billionaire Putin you dumb pleb..
I think when Lenin coined the term ‘useful idiot’ he was specifically thinking of you..
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 4:57 am
This is not new information but it does show an alternative to hydrogen for large scale transport. I am not sold on organic ammonia for AG applications. The better phrase would be low earth foot print fertilizer.
“The Potential Of Ammonia As Carbon-Free Fuel”
https://tinyurl.com/yy24a6ga clean technical
“The production method uses no natural gas, oil, or coal like conventional and very energy-demanding ammonia production, which means that there is potential to save enormous amounts of fossil energy and CO2. It’s the primary steps of producing the N2 and H2 gasses that are most energy-efficient with the new method, whilst the synthesis of the ammonia end product (3 H2 + N2 → 2 NH3) is the same as current technology. “If the ammonia we produce in this way can also be certified as organic, we’ll be able to solve a huge problem for many farmers, and perhaps we’ll see a massive growth of organic farming,” says PhD student Christian Dannesboe.”
“Our purpose in producing ammonia is precisely that it can be burned as a liquid fuel. In the original application of the project, it was intended to prove ammonia as a liquid fuel by rebuilding a ships combustion engine to operate on ammonia. It’s quite a revolutionary feat to manage that.”
“The application we have been granted now will be used to prove a radical energy-efficient production of ammonia only on the basis of electricity, water and air. When this is in place, we will build engines that prove that we have found the Egg of Columbus, and finally have a carbon free solution for heavy traffic (ships, trains and the like). We will also show that ammonia can be converted back to electricity using fuel cells in this project. It can be done incredibly energy-efficient, but we do it first and foremost to show the potential of ammonia as an energy carrier, and not so much to revolutionize electricity production in general.”
“There are several other challenges in ammonia combustion, such as low flammability and low radiation intensity. When the combustion dynamics are better understood, then even applications such as gas turbines may be viable. For starters, though, the huge 2-stroke piston ship engines seem like a good idea. In terms of safety, it’s important to note that even though ammonia is not explosive like traditional gas fuels, it is toxic for humans and has to be carried at sub-zero temperatures and high pressure in order to stay liquefied.”
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:04 am
I’d say set off as much combustible material as you can find in the house and end it all quickly. No one with actual power gives a rat’s a$$ about “natural steps”.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:23 am
“I’d say set off as much combustible material as you can find in the house and end it all quickly.”
So play a god with people’s lives? Economic terrorism to save the environment? I would caution all those of you who would like to see a mass collapse for the sake of the environment because such a collapse will likely be far dirtier than a slowly reforming status quo. It is possible the status quo will be forced to reform soon for multiple reasons. What will be dirtier a slow death or quick death? Nobody really knows these things but my opinion is a quick collapse with damage the environment more. Old people like many on this board don’t care their lives are nearly finished anyway.
This is my conclusion after years of research and living what I preach:
“Deep adaptation, post-sustainability and the possibility of societal collapse”
https://tinyurl.com/y2hrr9zd Resource Insights
https://tinyurl.com/ya2jnu5z Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy
“It is remarkable in a number of aspects. First, it was written by a professor of sustainability leadership who has been heavily involved for a long time in helping organizations including governments, nonprofits and corporations to become more sustainable. Second, the author, Jem Bendall, has now concluded the following after an exhaustive review of the most up-to-date findings about climate change: “inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction.” Third, his paper was rejected for publication not because it contained any errors of fact, but largely because it was too negative and thought to breed hopelessness. It is important to understand what Bendall means by “collapse” in this context. He does not necessarily mean an event taking place in a relatively short period of time all over the world all at once. Rather, he means severe disruptions of our lives and societies to a degree than renders our current institutional arrangements largely irrelevant. He believes we won’t be able to respond to the scope of suffering and change by doing things the way we are doing them now with only a few reformist tweaks. That this idea doesn’t go down well in sustainability circles should be no surprise. That’s because our current arrangements, even if “reformed” to take environmental imperatives into account, are in no way equal to the task ahead. Our existing institutions are structurally incapable of responding to what is coming and so consulting about how to reform them is largely a fool’s errand—not the way sustainability experts and consultants want to be thought of.”
“Instead, Bendall proposes a “post-sustainability” ethic. We must give up on the hope that our society can proceed largely on its current trajectory—with proper allowances, of course, for carbon emission reduction and climate change adaptation—and embrace what he calls “deep adaptation.” That agenda calls for resilience, relinquishment and restoration. The words themselves, especially “relinquishment,” convey something of the radical approach Bendall believes is now necessary. For details I implore you to read the paper. Perhaps the most interesting part of this paper is its detailed discussion of what Bendall calls “collapse denial.” Understanding the psychology behind the denial of collapse as a possibility and the opprobrium visited on those who speak of it openly is essential for grasping the current discourse on climate change (and many other existential environmental topics).”
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:28 am
Here are the important questions: “Who are we?” “Why are we here?” “How did we get here?” “What’s going to happen to us?”
All this petty bickering you guys engage in is just a result of not having the answers to these questions. And if you do have answers that are demonstrable, please share (no opinions, please).
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:30 am
“So play a god with people’s lives? Economic terrorism to save the environment?”
Oh, dear, Davy misses the point again.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:34 am
Here are the important questions: “Who are we?” “Why are we here?” “How did we get here?” “What’s going to happen to us?”
Wow, aren’t you naive?? LOL, as if there are answers to those questions.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:40 am
“All this petty bickering you guys engage in is just a result of not having the answers to these questions. And if you do have answers that are demonstrable, please share (no opinions, please).”
Pointer you needs some points. This forum is dead. It is now nested with extremist who make it their place to preach off topic personal agendas. We also have mentally ill people like JuanP stealing identities and using multiple socks daily. I don’t think unmoderated forums have much of a future. When they first came out they were great and liberating but anymore they are trashy and brutal. Kinda reflects the world we live in and a good definition for modern man.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:43 am
Pointer it is nice to have you here debating BTW as opposed to cloggo, makato, MOBO, and or a lying JuanO noise. Also, pointer, I don’t claim to be right and you wrong.
Where is lying JuanO on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:44 am
BTW, where the hell is lying JuanO? He must have had a hard not of drugs, alcohol and risky sex.
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:54 am
“Wow, aren’t you naive?? LOL, as if there are answers to those questions.”
Indeed there are answers to these questions. If you think about it, there have to be. Also, we all eventually get the answers. You may be surprised by how obvious they were all along.
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 6:55 am
“Kinda reflects the world we live in…”
Indeed again.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 7:13 am
“Indeed there are answers to these questions. If you think about it, there have to be. Also, we all eventually get the answers. You may be surprised by how obvious they were all along.”
Now you are going religious on me pointer. I like the spiritual but when you talk that way around here with so many practicing atheist they get all mean on you. They then try to tell you atheism is not a religion. LOL. There doesn’t have to be any answers to any of your questions in my view. Humans just want and hope there are. That is our problem maybe and why we likely are an evolutionary dead end. Extreme intelligence eventually kills itself off.
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 7:30 am
“Now you are going religious on me pointer.”
There you go again, Davy, with you mind jumping about. But apparently not to the possibility that there are answers to those questions that don’t involve religion, but rather just what is — sort of like gravity.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 7:45 am
So pointer thinks science will save us. I am firmly behind science but don’t believe science will answer many more questions. It will help demonstrate our evolutionary dead end tendencies. Science as employed by humans is unable to say no so we can expect mistake after mistake. I am not religious but I do respect the best of comparative religion. I also respect those who practice if it enhances peaceful community and stays out of the corrupting influences of politics and big money.
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 8:07 am
“So pointer thinks science will save us.”
Oh, dear, Davy, there you go again assuming. In addition to not being religious, I’m also not a “science is going to save us” type. So now what do you assume I am?
I AM THE MOB on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 8:28 am
Pointer
Just ignore Davy..He is an uneducated hick..All he does is spam this site with doomer porn from ZeroIQ..Which is a site for scoundrels..
He is just another angry old incel who can’t get laid and best days are behind him..So now he wants to make everyone as miserable as he is.
pointer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 8:33 am
MOB, thank you for your concern. Davy one day will realize that all the prepping in the world cannot defeat impermanence. And all the clever insults in the world won’t defeat it either. And misery is temporary.
Davy on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 9:15 am
Pointer, I figured that out a while ago. Now I prep because I like to. I like the way of life. I could be doing other things more restful like so many retired people. I chose a more rigorous way of life. Prepping will work for some people who also have luck on their side.
fmr-paultard on Sat, 23rd Mar 2019 9:35 am
supertard in denial obv.