wahoodoggydoo wrote:However, I believe we have the capability to dramatically change current global energy production and consumption to offset the impact of Peak Oil.
MonteQuest wrote:wahoodoggydoo wrote:However, I believe we have the capability to dramatically change current global energy production and consumption to offset the impact of Peak Oil.
Ah, but therein lies the rub.
Will we?
We haven't so far.
We haven't even started.
And history tells us we will wage war over the remaining supplies first.
Besides, do you really think we have 10 to 20 years before oil peaks and that a crash mitigation program is in the works as we speak?
Because, if not, then I don't think the capability exists to do so.
davep wrote: Having "...the capability to dramatically change current global energy production and consumption to offset the impact of Peak Oil" does not equate to actually doing it. Therein lies the rub...
MonteQuest wrote:I was trying to address both the "capability" and the actual move towards "change".
I don't see either on the horizon.
“Every year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.”
- TREC, Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation
davep wrote: The capability is self-evidently there.
davep wrote:To clarify:“Every year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.”
- TREC, Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation
MonteQuest wrote:davep wrote: The capability is self-evidently there.
But the time to scale up is not, that is self evident as well.
davep wrote: I don't know. If there was a sudden change in the honesty levels of world leaders and they instigated some sort of Manhatten project to harness the solar energy, there's a chance it would work in time. None of us know the exact timings and the short term effects of peak oil (beyond from demand destruction and price rises), so exclaiming that we defintely could or couldn't achieve an infrastructure change strikes me as crystal ball gazing spun as fact.
MonteQuest wrote:davep wrote:To clarify:“Every year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.”
- TREC, Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation
All all that solar energy currently is being used for other purposes. Just because it is a desert does not detract from it's value to our ecosystem, or mean we can just cover it with solar panels and windmills.
Edward Abbey once wrote of Canyonlands National Park: "...The least inhabited, least inhibited, least improved, least civilized...most grim bleak barren desolate and savage quarter of the state of Utah—the best by far." Like Abbey, I, too, love the desert. The desert visitor tends not to revere the desert as he would the green pine forest. Thus, as a result of unintentional bias, the more fragile desert plays second fiddle. If you can't handle the hard facts of solitude, searing heat, and scarce water; you are not likely to smell the flowers.
We already appropriate 40% of the NPP. How much more can we take from the energy stream that flows through nature and gives us the ecological balances and our temperate climate? We've seen what excess CO2 has done.
MonteQuest wrote:So, you see the Hirsch Report as crystal ball gazing? How far off could that assessment be? It assumed a Manhattan style crash program.
10 to 20 years is a pretty broad gaze, I would think.
Or do you see PO not happening for 10 to 20 years?
So, you see the Hirsch Report as crystal ball gazing?
davep wrote: I don't think using solar energy equates to NPP at all. We would be using an insignificant level of world total insolation. There is a slight risk of temperature rising due to harnessing the energy that may otherwise be lost back to space. This vanishingly small compared to other factors such as melting ice caps.
Limits to SustainabilitySimilarly, if humans divert a fraction of solar energy away from the environment to create ordered structures for their own purposes (i.e., houses, appliances, transportation infrastructure, communication systems, etc.), less energy is available to maintain highlyordered dissipative structures in nature. The disturbance of these structures translates into the various environmental impacts that are associated with renewable energy generation.
davep wrote: What measures did it consider in the crash program?
davep wrote:Whether we want to sustain the world's population with such techno-fixes is another question. But if those fixes are genuinely sustainable, then we can say that the carrying capacity of the earth is higher than it would be without them.
davep wrote:So, you see the Hirsch Report as crystal ball gazing?
This kind of report IS crystal ball gazing to an extent. It can only give a rough estimate of how things will pan out due to the number of variables in play.
MonteQuest wrote:This man thinks it wouldn't be "insignificant."Limits to SustainabilitySimilarly, if humans divert a fraction of solar energy away from the environment to create ordered structures for their own purposes (i.e., houses, appliances, transportation infrastructure, communication systems, etc.), less energy is available to maintain highlyordered dissipative structures in nature. The disturbance of these structures translates into the various environmental impacts that are associated with renewable energy generation.
MonteQuest wrote:davep wrote: What measures did it consider in the crash program?
Have you not read the entire report?
Renewable energy systems weren't even considered, nor were conservation or efficiency gains.
Why?
Inconsequential.
“The sun provides the Earth with more energy in an hour than the globe consumes in fossil energy in a year.”
- James Barber, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College, London
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 252 guests