[Ludi]

You believe that we can somehow successfully transition from this energy orgy in one fell swoop to a society powered only on the energy received from the sun, right?

No.

If that isn't what you believe, what exactly do you believe?

You don't actually care what I believe, you'd rather leap to conclusions about me.

So why even bother asking?

[FatherOfTwo]

Turned into a total doomer by those who seem to just not be interested in anothe rpoint of view, who in fact seem to put a great deal of importance on not understanding, not trying to understand,not wanting to understand, refusing to understand, another point of view.

If you are implying that I'm not willing to understand another point of view then you are sorely misinformed (which is understandable, you aren't inside my head ) When I first came to this board I had many misconceptions and lack of understanding about the issues. In fact, I've learnt a great deal from many of the threads on this board. But I see little if any of the same change or willingness to look at things without bias from some of the other senior posters on this board. Perhaps that isn't accurate, only each individual knows if they have grown on this board or only use it to trumpet the same views they've had since day 1.

Like calling people eco-fascists, when there are likely the smallest handful of people who even fit your definition of the word. It's sad, really, that you feel it's so important to be right, you can't even allow people to have another opinion without insulting them, without even really trying to understand what they're saying at all.

It's a term that gets someones attention. If it doesn't fit, it shouldn't rankle the person at all. If one gets upset by it, perhaps it is striking a chord?

If you can even half realistically show to me that we can accomplish this transition in one fell swoop, then I'll show you so much consensus building it'll make your head spin.

[Ibon]

Who is "welcoming a die-off"?

The 70% who chose change over building new nuke plants? Is that what you're really claiming?

I couldn't come up with a single candidate amoungst the many people I have had a pleasure to debate on this website. Nobody fits that caracature that I know of. It is worthwhile to explore why someone would be labled eco-fascist for merely advocating a return to a more base line natural energy cycle even if this would result in some "collateral damage" die-off of our current human numbers if doing so would avoid greater suffering at greater numbers in the future. Can it be that sometimes the more "compassionate" solutions may be displaced and eventually cause greater suffering. When I lived in Florida the only natural coastal forest habitat between Miami and West Palm Beach was this place where everyone dumped their stray cats. Little old retired ladies and gents would go there every morning and feed these feral critters along with a healthy population of raccoons. Well, migrating birds coming up from South America after an all night flight would spy that one stretch of coastal beach habitat and head for it only to find it swarming with feral cats. One could argue that those old retirees were demonstrating a form of displaced compassion that really didn't serve the ecology and was in fact detrimental. But these same folks would tell you that they are animal lovers and that's why they come and feed the cats.

This is a little story full of allagory for our modern predicament.

[Ibon]

I was smiling when I read this imagining how those 7 million people in Florida are going to say no to nuclear when fossil fuel becomes so expensive that they cant run all their air conditioners in summer. Renewables wont do it....

I'll respectfully disagree. Let's look at the numbers for solar thermal electric (STE).

Land use:
Here is a map with a little square that shows required land with 100% packing of 30% STE. This would supply all our current transportation as EV and grid demand.
http://lakeweb.com/chris/solar.gif

Four times this area is currently dedicated to easements.

Cost:
A new STE farm is going into the SW and starting at $4/peak watt. This is very pricey. But they expect the cost to drop to $2/peak watt when production of units gets into full swing. That competes with the cost of the last decommissioned nuclear plant at $8.50/watt. Within a decade cost is expected to be reduced to $1/peak watt. Now it becomes cost competitive with coal. And, it is producing during the most expensive demand time.

The combination of nuclear, wind, solar, and pumped storage, if diligently perused, could replace coal in a few decades.

Best, Dan.

Thank you for that post. I mentioned earlier when arguing with EnergySpin against nuclear energy that concentrated solar (thermal) was a renewable energy that could be scaled if combined with the chemistry of storage. Alot of people are not up to date on the advances that have been made with concentrated thermal solar, myself included. Most people still associate solar with PV. Is the plant you mentioned already commercial or is this still a research facility. I don't hear alot about investments, increased research spending or interests from the private sector, either from established companies or venture capitalists. Do you know if this technology is gaining some traction to become more commercialized anytime soon?

[Ludi]

If you are implying that I'm not willing to understand another point of view then you are sorely misinformed (which is understandable, you aren't inside my head)

You've never given me any indication that you have any real interest in understanding my opinion.

If you can even half realistically show to me that we can accomplish this transition in one fell swoop, then I'll show you so much consensus building it'll make your head spin.

When I've just told you I don't advocate anything "in one fell swoop."

You believe that we can somehow successfully transition from this energy orgy in one fell swoop to a society powered only on the energy received from the sun, right?

No.

Now, where in that exchange is any indication that you are trying to understand? Is there any? No, clearly not.

[Ludi]

Who is "welcoming a die-off"?

The 70% who chose change over building new nuke plants? Is that what you're really claiming?

I couldn't come up with a single candidate amoungst the many people I have had a pleasure to debate on this website. Nobody fits that caracature that I know of. It is worthwhile to explore why someone would be labled eco-fascist for merely advocating a return to a more base line natural energy cycle even if this would result in some "collateral damage" die-off of our current human numbers if doing so would avoid greater suffering at greater numbers in the future.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Daryl]

Who is "welcoming a die-off"?

The 70% who chose change over building new nuke plants? Is that what you're really claiming?

I couldn't come up with a single candidate amoungst the many people I have had a pleasure to debate on this website. Nobody fits that caracature that I know of.

How do we change to a sustainable lifestyle without die-off? Remember, we are in overshoot because of overusage of cheap hydrocarbons. Cheap hydrocarbons are disappearing. How do you replace hydrocarbons with enough energy to support the current world population? Maybe you don't welcome a die-off, but by advocating powerdown, aren't you implicitly advocating die-off?

[Ibon]

Who is "welcoming a die-off"?

The 70% who chose change over building new nuke plants? Is that what you're really claiming?

I couldn't come up with a single candidate amoungst the many people I have had a pleasure to debate on this website. Nobody fits that caracature that I know of.

How do we change to a sustainable lifestyle without die-off? Remember, we are in overshoot because of overusage of cheap hydrocarbons. Cheap hydrocarbons are disappearing. How do you replace hydrocarbons with enough energy to support the current world population? Maybe you don't welcome a die-off, but by advocating powerdown, aren't you implicitly advocating die-off?

Please let me first clarify that I don't 100% advocate everything I'm explaining here. I tend to jump into different belief systems and I am the first to admit that I contradict myself! To answer your question implicitly yes, one does advocate a die-off of our human numbers by a powerdown just in the exact same way that we advocate an eventual die-off by continuing to live unsustainably. Its the old toothache analogy. It hurts. Do we pull it now or do we let it fester and absess? Go back and read my story of the migratory birds that get eaten by feral cats. Compassion is complicated when we are dealing with coming up with the most humane solutions. I accept that our solutions are inherantly messy.

[Ludi]

If one of those of us who advocate a powerdown were to outline how we think such a thing could, or even should, play out, there's every likelihood that even by proposing such a thing, we would be called "fascists or eco-fascists" I think. Because a couple times people have started threads about possible powerdown scenarios, or even little aspects of a powerdown, and pretty much been screamed off the board. So it's very very difficult to work up the courage to propose any such thing, or even aspects of various solutions. Do you see what I'm saying? Any kind of offering of a different way of life is pretty strongly rejected on the board, in my personal experience.

[Ibon]

There is aids medicine that pharmaceutical companies could have given to millions of Africans and we didn't. Millions have died that didn't need to die. We carry the burden of that decision on our shoulders, every single one of us. How many of you followed the logic that well, Africa is so hopeless in its struggle, so over populated, perhaps if was best to allocate resources somewhere else. With so many endemic problems on that continent, why save lives of terminally ill aids patients when the development of this continent seems so futile. I can assure you there are millions of people (you could call them eco-fascists!) out there including everyday mom and dads in western countries that endorsed this belief. If any of you would have been over there and sat at the bedside of any individual human suffering this illness and were involved in community building efforts you would not be able to fathom the human cruelty that would deny available medicine to a human in need.

Think about this and recognize the eco fascist that lies in all of our hearts at some level.

We have a mess and all solutions will be inherantly messy. There is no way we will make transition out of our unsustainable population being able to keep a clean conscious. None of us. Any living human on this planet who eats, shits and blows methane out their asses is collectively morally responsible, weather you drive a prius, burn biodiesel or just try to walk with the smallest foot print.

[Ludi]

Ibon, once we admit this, which is true, how do we move on?

[Daryl]

See, I'm not so sure a transition to nuclear ultimately means die-off later, at least in the sense of a catastrophic collapse. There are micro-examples of population decreasing in teh absence of catastrophe. Rome for example, suffered from depopulation. Europe has a very low birthrate. I would welcome some hard numbers from someone knowledgable, but I don't think the French and the Swedes are replacing themselves. Of course, I realize that Europe's population has grown, but that's chiefly due to immigration from the "provinces". My point is that some local birthrates have become negative naturally. We don't know if that might ultimately happen globally. Also, if make an assumption that nuclear keeps us powered up for another hundred years, who are we to know what political and economic changes lie ahead. A benevolent world government may come to power that finds a way to control population benevolently. Natural disasters beyond our control could keep population under control, also.

My point is that there is enough uncertainty about the future that you can't justify advocating a die-off now because you think there might be a worse one later.

[Ibon]

See, I'm not so sure a transition to nuclear ultimately means die-off later, at least in the sense of a catastrophic collapse. There are micro-examples of population decreasing in teh absence of catastrophe. Rome for example, suffered from depopulation. Europe has a very low birthrate. I would welcome some hard numbers from someone knowledgable, but I don't think the French and the Swedes are replacing themselves. Of course, I realize that Europe's population has grown, but that's chiefly due to immigration from the "provinces". My point is that some local birthrates have become negative naturally. We don't know if that might ultimately happen globally. Also, if make an assumption that nuclear keeps us powered up for another hundred years, who are we to know what political and economic changes lie ahead. A benevolent world government may come to power that finds a way to control population benevolently. Natural disasters beyond our control could keep population under control, also.

My point is that there is enough uncertainty about the future that you can't justify advocating a die-off now because you think there might be a worse one later.

How will our culture balance between simply trusting in a better future and steering this in the most benevolent way that we minimize human suffering? I don't think we would willfully advocate directly a die-off. It's the indirect consequences of our decisions that could either give or take energy away from sustainable or unsustainable human endeavours. I do still hold the optimism that a tough transition will re-engineer our heads to a less consumptive cultural value system. We need this imposed on us to get it started initially but once we accept that the party is over we can then work toward building a society that enjoys a high quality of life in a simpler powered down existance. But I do believe there will be some messy decisions along the way to get us there. If its spread out over enough time that population reduction can result through generations having less children thus avoiding a short term die-off than great. It does come back to something Montequest mentioned frequently; it will depend on the rate of change and depletion how humane or inhumane we make this transition. Enough. I'm going out to chop some wood and I dont plan on thinking about these big questions while Im doing it!

[Ibon]

Ibon, once we admit this, which is true, how do we move on?

Any world government is going to be confronted with balancing short term needs with a long term goal toward sustainability. This is going to be an extremely difficult task especially weaning aflluent societies away from their entitlement to high energy consumption. It's going to take a cultural shift of immense proportions to make this equitable and cooperative. It all depends on the rate of depletion. I don't think anybody has an idea whats coming toward us or how enlightened or primitive we will respond. On an ascending scale of chaos we will descend in the following order in our ability to find equitable and cooperative solutions; from global to national to regional to community to family to individual. If history is any guide there will be moments in this transition that our humanity will shine and moments when we descend to the deepest levels of self interest.

[Ludi]

My point is that there is enough uncertainty about the future that you can't justify advocating a die-off now because you think there might be a worse one later.

If you look at what biologists are telling us, we need to be seriously concerned about how our culture is dealing with the life support systems which sustain us. I don't know if you follow this at all, but biologists are pointing out that we are seriously damaging most ecosystems on Earth, and reducing biological diversity (basically turning biomass into human mass). If you need more info on this I would be happy to provide it. It may be very dangerous to put off a transition until later, because we don't know how much of the biosphere we can damage without seriously compromising or even eliminating our chances to survive as a species in the future. In any case, we are seriously compromising our chances for a good future by putting off action until some undefined point in the future.

[Ludi]

Ibon, once we admit this, which is true, how do we move on?

Any world government is going to be confronted with balancing short term needs with a long term goal toward sustainability. This is going to be an extremely difficult task especially weaning aflluent societies away from their entitlement to high energy consumption. It's going to take a cultural shift of immense proportions to make this equitable and cooperative.

I'm having a little trouble making sense of the first sentence there, Ibon. Because, I was under the impression we were talking about the present or the near future. There isn't a "world government." So, I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're saying. I don't personally think we can rely on "governments" to help us much with this situation, I don't see how the governments we have can engineer a cultural shift. From my own point of view, I imagine a cultural shift occuring at the individual and local level initially. At least in the case of democracies, one would expect the people to lead, as they are, at least nominally, the government. But from my own point of view, I prefer a more local community solution rather than a solution imposed from the top down. Top down solutions seem, to me, to be more along the lines of actual "fascism." And nothing I have ever advocated for one second on this board.

[MonteQuest]

Reading the rest of your posts ... it is evident that you have some kind of psychological/ideological hang-up with energy in general.

No, I just have a respect for ecological limits.

Another ad hominem attack gains no ground.

[MonteQuest]

Sorry monte but this attitude is strictly confined to what I call enviro-fossils; people who have not looked seriously in the world (nature+technology+humans) since the 60s.

And since my entire life has been focused around looking at nature+technology+humans and the consequences of those interactions, you seem to imply I have not done so seriously, nor the ecologists and biologists that I worked with over the years with the National Park Service who share my views.

This is expected of someone with your worldview.

Trouble is, your world view is not sustainable.

[MonteQuest]

Environmentalists and ecologists do not trust energy sources that add supplemental energy to human endeavours since humans act like all other critters and just multiply using this supplemental energy.

I can see the logic here. But there is a problem with the concept: what is supplemental energy?

Supplemental energy is an heretofore previously unexploited energy/food source that allows any given species the ability to overshoot the carrying capacity of their environment by a rapid population bloom that always results in a die-off.

A new unexploited energy/food source may expand the carrying capacity again, but the probable consequences are extinction for the species as the environment is destroyed that supports it in the long run, or a reduction in the population to levels far below those obtained before the exploitation. Basic ecology 101.

[Ludi]

Monte, what about the idea that we'll just use the nuke energy to transition to a sustainable way of life?

This seems to be what some are proposing, that it's just a bridge or stopgap to a sustainable way of life based on solar energy.