SeaGypsy wrote:
The gamers' if giving thought to the consequences; imagine their great grandkids living under a giant plexiglass solar collecter wizz bang unity networked supercomputer protoplasm world, with the rest of the world resembling a damp and poisonous version of Mars, think "Oh well, that's kinda cool!"
Meanwhile electricity based modules are going to dominate many aspects of the global economy, well beyond oil. With resource flexibility and all the billions going into carbon capture/ (recycle re-burn via algae emerges strongly at this point), the cards have essentially been shown.
After oil, the next seriously key resources are metals associated with electricity capture, storage and transfer. The energy to run through the equipment is going to be competitive up until there may be no live coral or anything with a spine in the ocean. I'm pretty sure, at that point, we are totally FUBAR. I think the science based on calcium accumulation in mollusk and reef species indicates global ocean death in the 100 to 250 year timespan from now. It is unknown what science may be able to achieve to alleviate or mitigate any of the most drastic effects.
The most serious thinkers seem to be suggesting nukes are the only backstop energy with a miniscule carbon footprint by comparison to any alternative, which may buy us enough time to sidestep absolute global disaster by carbonification of oceans and air.
Amazingly, central Australia may turn once again into a forest full of rivers.... mmmm....
ralfy wrote:Martenson discussed this idea in his video lecture, and I recall one report (probably mentioned in Energy Bulletin) that assessed the idea of business as usual with various sources of energy, and from what I gathered, the likely scenario is that we will use various sources of energy to survive, but it will not allow us to maintain the current global economy, which needs oil, either for most operations or as a start up.
There are many factors to consider. For example, for nuclear power, I think Martenson states that just to meet two-thirds of U.S. energy demands using nuclear power, one will need something like the total number of reactors worldwide. And that's just to meet two-thirds of the energy needs of less than 5 pct of the world's population. Of course, there should be various ways to lower energy and resource costs, but one should balance them with all sorts of problems that will crop up. This is important, as we did not do such when we started using oil.
If we assume that an amount of time (not to mention significant levels of global coordination) will be needed to move from an oil-based to an electricity (and other)-based economy as well as oil and other resources needed for other sources of energy, then we'll probably need something like two decades to make that possible.
SeaGypsy wrote:
Your first quote of Martenson does not undo my argument. Do I have to keep saying I am not talking about 'continued growth/ BAU' but about the existence of an economic continuum only? The second part is an obvious component of mainstream discussion.
The bolded paragraph shows what you and many others are missing.
The reason electric has to be the dominant component is that it is redundant/ already in place. We don't have to do anything to make what is already there possible.
ralfy wrote:I think "have and have not" will take place internally rather than externally. That is, various armed groups will take control of regions, preying on civilians, both locally and abroad.
Pops wrote:ralfy wrote:I think "have and have not" will take place internally rather than externally. That is, various armed groups will take control of regions, preying on civilians, both locally and abroad.
Ralfy, I usually agree with most of your posts but I disagree with the regression to armed tribes theory in the US – if that is what you meant. I know, armed (whatever) is a pretty dominant theme in the American psyche but the reality is usually more mundane law and order or at worst, oppression. Whenever there is a ownership interest present, there is usually a formal peace keeper of some kind. It's been that way right across the country since the beginning, as soon as there is any sort of community there is a LEO and rudimentary justice system. Granted the LEO ain't always Marshal Dillon, sometimes he's Little Bill or worse, Boss Hog, but still, we just don't have much of a tradition of "armed groups" running things for any significant period.
Pops wrote:
Ralfy, I usually agree with most of your posts but I disagree with the regression to armed tribes theory in the US – if that is what you meant. I know, armed (whatever) is a pretty dominant theme in the American psyche but the reality is usually more mundane law and order or at worst, oppression. Whenever there is a ownership interest present, there is usually a formal peace keeper of some kind. It's been that way right across the country since the beginning, as soon as there is any sort of community there is a LEO and rudimentary justice system. Granted the LEO ain't always Marshal Dillon, sometimes he's Little Bill or worse, Boss Hog, but still, we just don't have much of a tradition of "armed groups" running things for any significant period.
And I think that is a big part of the reason I agree for the most part that Business will continue, as it pretty well has since before memory. The new Usual will be just as usual as it ever was because we all have have a tendency to ignore the changes right in front of our nose and pretend everything is usual until the unusual can be christened the "Good Old Days".
Take the labor force participation for example, it's lower than it's been in 30 years and continuing down, older workers are working longer and middle aged workers aren't, to me this seems like a big deal but it gets little attention and in fact papered over with terms like "long term unemployment".
I know there is an ongoing fantasy that the left is going to come try to take the guns and property of the God fearing and there'll be this big showdown (or the race war/secession/MadMax Gas War/etc) but the boiled frog says different. What is happening right in front of our eyes is simply percieved as usual right up to the point it can no longer be ignored.
Pops wrote:Americans I think, are very conformist (even in our pretend "individualism") and accepting of authoritarianism by any other name. We are still Puritans under our Ralph Lauren and we - especially my generation - are anti-science, magic-believing and zealously paternalistic, so an ever more authoritarian government in a constant state of one kind of war or another is almost a given.
From your link Ralfy:
I am hopeful that this collapse will actually be the beginning of something really great for mankind. With the collapse of the dollar, those that were lured into a senseless narcissistic consumer lifestyle will be forced to come to the understanding that instant gratification is not why we are put on this earth.
Projecting our wishes onto the future – remaking it in our own image sorta speak is a common malady, I'm as guilty as anyone and really try to keep it in mind when adjusting the focus on my crystal ball. Every advocate of "collapse" or US "balkanization" has at heart some version of the same ideal, which is: teaching the wayward a lesson, smiting the sinners, wasting the wasters – in short, giving Karma a helping hand. And of course, Karma is always on our side!
Oh yeah, The Future is Electric (sorry Gypsy) whatever the primary energy source (of course eventually it will be solar – as in photosynthesis) there will be some kind of economy, some kind of trade and for each generation I'd guess it will seem like BAU. What was will always seem like the Good Ol' Days and "The Future" will always be when the wayward get their comeuppance.
pstarr wrote:I search in vain for a discussion on the difficulty/impossibility of practical EV use in real world. It seems discussions of EV-ICE substitution assume a very limited specific application, regular suburban commuting characterized by,
--a fixed route,
--during a specific time frame,
--of regular duration/distance,
--within a built-up infrastructure full of charging potential.
This is not the real world, only the one populated by internet hobbyists and cornucopians.
pstarr wrote:seemstobeShorty wrote:And, according to GM, 75% of the American commuting public who can use their EV for their daily commuting needs.
Then why did GM kill the electric car?
pstarr wrote:
But of course that is not my point. I would argue that neither EV's or ICE's are possible in the post-peak future.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests