Page 4 of 19

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:11:03
by Novus
Zardoz wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Novus wrote:Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means.


Sure I have. For over 35 years. I am now 55. It means restricted per capita energy use, population reduction and downscaling everything we do to a sustainable level. It means more free time and less rat race. It means better quality products in lieu of junk quantity. It means ecological responsibility, resulting in a better environmental balance. It means seriously addressing global warming. It means addressing the gross inequities in the world. It means more global cooperation and less war and strife. It means less competition. It means more community of man and more of a local culture in the production of goods and services.


Novus, we really need for you to give us your complete, concise definition of "power down". I get the impression that you think it means "power off".

MQ has given us his definition. Now please give us yours. Please define "power down".


I see power down as euphemism for power off. Monte's vision of power down has less to do with actual power and more to do with social justice issues.

Here is Monte's Logic:
It means restricted per capita energy use. (already happening)
population reduction. (Some form of mass death no doubt.)
downscaling everything we do to a sustainable level. (depends, but could be reasonable)
It means more free time and less rat race. (nothing to do with power)
It means better quality products in lieu of junk quantity. (This won't happen on its own and has little to do with power)
It means ecological responsibility, resulting in a better environmental balance. (Difficult or impossible to do without technology)
It means seriously addressing global warming. (see technology)
It means addressing the gross inequities in the world. (social justice)
It means more global cooperation (Pick up a history book)
It means less competition. (Illogical at best, fewer resources mean more competition for them)
It means more community of man (what does that mean)
more of a local culture in the production of goods and services. (reasonable)

The way I see it power down is a massive rollback of the industrial and green revolutions. This means universal poverty and mass starvation. It will also mean the total distruction of the evironment as a global Easter Island would unfold as desparate people cut down every single tree, eat every animal, and over fish the seas down to the last snale. The only way to carry out a power down would be through organized mass cullings of the surpluss population. The Dr. Death solution if you will. Release the airborn Ebola-Reston strain to kill-off 90% of the human race so that the 10% that lives is given a chance to survive powered down.

There is only one reasonable solution and that is to reject the madness of power down and move toward Repowering the industrial world for when oil runs out. Even now that we are past peak it can still be done. It will require a massive re-organization of the way people live and work but society more or less will remain the same. This reorganization will not require complete tear downs of existing inferstructure but simply a re-ordering of it.

If this task is given to the engineers of the world it can be done.
Techology to non-engineers is often alien and disasociated with the workings of modern life. Non-engineers have no idea what technology can be made to do. Engineers live by a phrase. It is called: "Failure is not option." It means you do what needs to be done and you make it work.

This ethic was used most successfully during the Apollo 13 crisis. After an explosion crippled the service modual the three men inside seemed doomed. The commander told his crew we are bringing these men home and invoked the phrase "Failure is not option." The bean counters said it could not be done. There simply was not enough power to get the men home. Sound familiar? The bean counters did not build the machine and did not understand all that could be done. Every engineer that built any component of the Apollo 13 spacecraft was summoned to squeeze every last bit of power out of the system. These engineers were able to find the power hidden in the system by reordering the technology that was already on the spacecraft. When the men returned home alive the President said it was miricle but the truth was it was engineering that saved them.

I invoke "Failure is not an option" today because that is what is needed in the face of Peak Oil. The task at hand is to bring on enough alternatives for them to become self sustaining without outside fosil fuels. Engineers are going to go through every single component of the industrial machine looking for power and by hell they are going to find it and the bean counters who say it can't be done are going to be prooven wrong.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:26:34
by MonteQuest
Novus wrote:Here is Monte's Logic:
It means restricted per capita energy use. (already happening)
population reduction. (Some form of mass death no doubt.)
downscaling everything we do to a sustainable level. (depends, but could be reasonable)
It means more free time and less rat race. (nothing to do with power)
It means better quality products in lieu of junk quantity. (This won't happen on its own and has little to do with power)
It means ecological responsibility, resulting in a better environmental balance. (Difficult or impossible to do without technology)
It means seriously addressing global warming. (see technology)
It means addressing the gross inequities in the world. (social justice)
It means more global cooperation (Pick up a history book)
It means less competition. (Illogical at best, fewer resources mean more competition for them)
It means more community of man (what does that mean)
more of a local culture in the production of goods and services. (reasonable)

The way I see it power down is a massive rollback of the industrial and green revolutions. This means universal poverty and mass starvation.


Folks, see what I mean by a different world paradigm? He can only visualize "my logic" in terms that are 180 degrees from my actual logic.

He can't see it any other way. The biggest thing that surprised me was that he failed to see the connections to energy use and environmental impact with each and every thing I mentioned.

And "community of man" was over his head?

No wonder we are in trouble.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:33:40
by MonteQuest
Novus wrote:There is only one reasonable solution and that is to reject the madness of power down and move toward Repowering the industrial world for when oil runs out.


Why would you wish to repower an unsustainable system?

Are our resources infinite?

What about for when water peaks?

What about for when topsoil peaks?

What about for when arable land peaks?

What about for when inorganic nitrogen peaks?

What about for when the environmental sinks peak?

What about when the population reaches 9 billion in less than 50 years?

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:36:40
by Novus
After that last post Monte all I have to say to you is stay out of my way. You did a good job in waking us all up to Peak Oil but now it is time for you to move over. People with solutions are stepping forward and we are not going to let you tell us what cannot be done.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:38:55
by rwwff
Sorry, can't resist.
MonteQuest wrote:
Novus wrote:There is only one reasonable solution and that is to reject the madness of power down and move toward Repowering the industrial world for when oil runs out.


Hmmmm...
Why would you wish to repower an unsustainable system?
To make more plastic toys.

Are our resources infinite?
No.

What about for when water peaks?
Some less productive twit goes without water.

What about for when topsoil peaks?
Food production is capped.

What about for when arable land peaks?
Food production is capped.

What about for when inorganic nitrogen peaks?
Outside my knowledge base.

What about for when the environmental sinks peak?
Earth gets its normal climate back.

What about when the population reaches 9 billion in less than 50 years?
Less productive twits get to go without food and water.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 15:29:44
by MonteQuest
Novus wrote:After that last post Monte all I have to say to you is stay out of my way. You did a good job in waking us all up to Peak Oil but now it is time for you to move over. People with solutions are stepping forward and we are not going to let you tell us what cannot be done.


It is not me who is saying what cannot be done, it is physics, energy density, EROEI, environmental limits, and scalability. I am merely the messenger.

I remind you that our current system is unsustainable and that there are limits and you tell me to get out of the way?

Sounds like flat earth economics and a denial that there are limits. But before I error in misjudging your logic like you have mine, tell us how you will address these issues and limits I laid out?

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 16:01:29
by Ludi
MonteQuest wrote:What about for when water peaks?

What about for when topsoil peaks?

What about for when arable land peaks?

What about for when inorganic nitrogen peaks?

What about for when the environmental sinks peak?



I think we're about as close to those peaks as we are to Peak Oil (in other words, right up against it). But you know that, Monte.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 16:14:01
by TonyPrep
Novus wrote:People with solutions are stepping forward and we are not going to let you tell us what cannot be done.
Did I miss something, Novus? Your previous post gave no solution. Your "solution" seems to be "I believe we can repower human civilisation, therefore, let's get on with it". You offered no explanation about how we do that, other than citing a completely inappropriate example of one situation involving one spacecraft and a few men. We are talking about over 6.5 billion people and a highly complex society that seems to imagine that resources are infinite (as you do).

Perhaps if you offered solutions, rather than dreams, you might have a point.

Tony

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 16:17:29
by Zardoz
Novus wrote:...People with solutions are stepping forward and we are not going to let you tell us what cannot be done.


Nevertheless, the miraculously unique properties of crude oil and natural gas, and their even-more-miraculous abundance, make them resources that we simply will not be able to replace.

We can't come up with a substitute for them. That cannot be done.

And without them, we can't live as we are now living. That cannot be done.

This is the reality of what we face:

The terrible spike

You cite the Apollo 13 incident as some sort of proof that an engineering techno-fix exists that will allow us to carry on without oil and gas. I'm sorry, but you are indulging in the worst kind of "engineering arrogance" when you spout that "failure is not an option" nonsense.

You need to be reminded that engineering most definitely can fail:

Image
Space Shuttle Challenger

Image
Space Shuttle Columbia

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 16:19:09
by Ludi
I'm also very interested in Novus' solutions, especially if they are something I can implement in my own life somehow, rather than depending on government or the kindness of strangers who want to keep me from dying.

I hope he posts them.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:24:47
by Novus
You can read all about my solutions when I publish my book of Peak Oil solutions in early 2007.

The summery of solutions I propose is as follows. Sorry there is not much an individual can do right now. These solutions are aimed mostly at big energy companies and governments who are desparately looking for a plan B right about now.

- Convert homes/businesses to DC power (Makes all electronics/appliences cheaper and more energy efficient)
- Build Stirling Solar Collactors (For Localized Water purifying & Power Generation)
- Grey water management system for rural areas
- Build Wind power generation (Localized Power Generation)
- Build Geo Thermal Heat pumps (replaces hot water heater, furnus, air conditioning all in one)
- Divorce your car and move to a walkable community (change zoning laws)
- Become a cannabis farmer (government needs to make leagal)

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:32:46
by Ludi
Novus wrote:- Convert homes/businesses to DC power (Makes all electronics/appliences cheaper and more energy efficient)
- Build Stirling Solar Collactors (For Localized Water purifying & Power Generation)
- Grey water management system for rural areas
- Build Wind power generation (Localized Power Generation)
- Build Geo Thermal Heat pumps (replaces hot water heater, furnus, air conditioning all in one)
- Divorce your car and move to a walkable community (change zoning laws)
- Become a cannabis farmer (government needs to make leagal)


None of those are in conflict with what Monte is proposing, as far as I know. Why do you think Monte is opposed to your solutions?

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:33:44
by Ibon
Novus wrote:I see power down as euphemism for power off. Monte's vision of power down has less to do with actual power and more to do with social justice issues.


Novus,

This issue is not idealogical. You just don't get that do you? Back in the 70's we could afford to argue these subjects from a more idealogical framework. But today reality is imposing itself and eclipsing what you, Monte, Garyp or any of us might believe or want to believe about the future. Transition and change, as we all agree, will not happen willfully, but will be imposed. What remains to be seen is how much cultural transformation can happen willfully once we get it hammered into our heads from natural consequences and we then understand that we need to acquiese to natural limits.

Nobody is saying here not to try do everything in our power to mitigate including using available technologies. What we are saying is that without an accompanying strategy of powering down of our energy usage there is no available viable substitution to oil. What you see today as a normative lifestyle of consumption is by its very usage of energy unsustainable and therefore it is an anomally that has no survivability. Any in depth study of solutions, starting with the Hirsch report states that the pathway out of this includes changes in our consumption habits.

Really, you have to present a study of peak oil and consequences that is out there that says we can get through this with solutions that will not require us to powering down. I don't know of one. Care to enlighten us?

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:41:19
by holmes
Novus has solutions for sure:
Trapped in a hermetically sealed cement box, fed by tubes of air, water and nutrient paste.
You WILL NOT want to go outside! The solutions will make sure of that. The solution is a prison planet.

LOL!
Im telling u Soylent Green is not out a the question.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:47:23
by seldom_seen
mmmm! nutrient paste.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:50:14
by holmes
LOL! ROFLMAO! Whats up seen? The solutions. Be very very scared of the "solutions". Im having a feeling cancer rates are going to go up when these monkeys start the solutions process.
Hehe. Not funny really.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:51:09
by Ludi
Here's another question for Novus:

Where will the funds come from to implement your solutions?

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 17:54:54
by seldom_seen
solutions...hmm... maybe we'll all get one of our own sleeping capsules with all you can eat nutrient paste?

Image

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 18:01:26
by holmes
For the love of god, there are such devices that exist!

cash will come from the panicking taxpayers where else does it come from?
It will be a blanket fear monger Ponzi scheme. The environment will be wrecked and so forth.

Eventually those that work will have 50-75% of their earning taken for welfare and energy ponzi schemes.
Hope I am wrong!

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Jun 2006, 18:10:17
by Novus
Ludi wrote:Here's another question for Novus:

Where will the funds come from to implement your solutions?


In my opinion energy is money. If there is money then it will find its' way to the energy sooner or later. One solution I have been thinking about is where some type energy credit becomes the currency of the future. Anyone who can produce energy can basically print their own money. This changes the creation of money away from banks and puts it in the hands of producers where it belongs. The money system can then only expand as much energy creation does.