Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Ibon,

The essentials of your argument were sort of portrayed in the Star Trek - Borg episodes, no?

Newfie wrote:Ibon,

The essentials of your argument were sort of portrayed in the Star Trek - Borg episodes, no?

Yeah except that resistance isn't futile.

The internet is the digital version of suburbia; mind numbing mediocrity.

I use the internet for useful information. This is everyone elses excuse also as they try to justify and explain away why they waste so many hours a day on this shit.

Ibon wrote:All we have done is given the stupidity of the masses a voice and have elevated it through the internet so that learned science and philosophy no longer is relevant and can not compete with the mediocrity that has replaced it.

Given the way people think short term and dismiss the big picture, etc., OK, I'll certainly admit that for most, philosophy - at least in any formal or meaningful sense, is far less relevant now to the masses than it was a generation ago. Expecially two generations ago.

But science? Unless you live in some third world hell hole without access to almost any modern convenience, modern communication, etc., what the hell? Whether the masses are LEARNING as much STEM material as they should, and applying it to their lives, is one thing. But for virtually 99% of the first world, the every-day gadgets, devices, tools, and the material and informational components of a huge part of their lifestyle are ENTIRELY dependent on science. And in a timeframe of more than a year or two, require quite a bit of science to be maintained, upgraded, etc. (How happy are the masses when there is a significant internet outage, for one obvious example? Such issues don't fix themselves. For another, leading car mechanics for modern cars are now really computer technicians / scientists.)

And by the way, assuming its relevant that folks get a decent job and have a decent rewarding, well paying career -- I'd say science has NEVER been more relevant, if you bundle computer science into the mix, for the hugely growing number of jobs that require meaningful computer skills.

Our system – characterised by perpetual economic growth on a planet that is not growing – will inevitably implode.

The only question is whether the transformation is planned or unplanned. Our task is to ensure it is planned, and fast.

We need to conceive and build a new system based on the principle that every generation, everywhere has an equal right to enjoy natural wealth.

This is less daunting than we might imagine. As Erica Chenoweth’s historical research reveals, for a peaceful mass movement to succeed, a maximum of 3.5% of the population needs to mobilise.

-- George Monbiot

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dApp_Tweet

Doh,

Yes I saw that also. The 3.5% number sounds quite low but maybe correct.

It does give some hope we can start a meaningful movement.

Outcast,

While the 1st world relies upon science they don’t, for the most part, understand it. Even those who are savy in some field have little clue outside our own niche. Thus we take DNA research as faith. How many have the foggiest clue of how a cell phone works? Not how to work a cell phone (memorized incantations) but how the device works? About zip point nil.

Like it or not for the most part our science/technology has a lot in common with religion, it’s beyond our understanding, but we go with the flow.

Ibon wrote:

Newfie wrote:

Ibon wrote:

Newfie wrote:
I keep harping on the difference between Consumerisim and Capitalisim because it is crucial to understanding our path forward.
.

I think this distinction you have been drawing is important actually. The pressures of constraining resources may result in a decoupling of sorts between the culture of consumption and the basic bones of the economic system of capitalism. ?? Yeah, I can imagine....

Thanks for that. I know I’m pitching a hard sell but I’m convienced I’m into something. It does require taking a different world view.

Newfie, I found your brother..... Watch this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GX6a2W ... kdXtQbLX3E

Ibon,

I’ve heard of this gentleman before and read a bit about him. But this made him come alive for me.

I think you paid me a very high complement.

Thank you.

It just proves my point. We (meaning humans) are incapable of acting for the good of the race. We always act in the way that maximizes comfort for ourselves, extended family, tribe, country, etc. We are in fact apes, and we act like apes.

Almost all (meaning 99+%) of the citizens of the USA can decide to purchase BEVs instead of gasoline/diesel fuelled ICE vehicles, if indeed they actually need personal transport, versus mass transit or UBER/etc. When do you plan to get yours?

Most homeowners can elect to put Solar PV or a wind turbine in place, along with batteries. YES, your cost per kWhr will quadruple, at least. That will incent you to save energy, certainly - which is something you need to be doing anyway. When do YOU plan to do this? Remember to size the power for "energy plus", to charge your BEV.

You are citizens of the USA. You cannot expect anybody else anywhere anytime to do this if you are unwilling to sacrifice your comfort and convenience to save the planet from CC. But you have NOT DONE THIS, AND NEVER PLAN TO DO SO.

You are not doing it because you are apes, doing what your instincts tell you to do, behaving as apes behave, for you and your ape troop. Some fools who were sold a piece of BS as undergraduates would have you believe that those instincts are called "Capitalism".

Darwin was right, and the Anthropologists are right, and Economics and "Modern Money Theory" are BS. Congrats on being among the scant few who give a moment's thought to TEOTWAWKI, just as it begins.

KJ,

Who are you talking to?

Newfie wrote:KJ,

Who are you talking to?

He is speaking to the collective new hybrid hive mind of humanity

I think the pro-collectivism folks on this thread have the title inversed. What they really mean is "We Use Climate Change as the rationale for Ending Capitalism!"

The truth is, France as much as they are a blended socialist/capitalist nation showed the way to get carbon out of the energy system three decades ago when they went Nuclear baseload. If we had a lock of sense everyone who is on the climate change is a bad idea bandwagon would be screaming for everyone else to follow the lead of France rather than pouring ever more money down the expensive and low efficiency renewable drain...er Dream! Renewable Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it is not only the best choice, but the only choice.

Tanada wrote:I think the pro-collectivism folks on this thread have the title inversed. What they really mean is "We Use Climate Change as the rationale for Ending Capitalism!"

The truth is, France as much as they are a blended socialist/capitalist nation showed the way to get carbon out of the energy system three decades ago when they went Nuclear baseload. If we had a lock of sense everyone who is on the climate change is a bad idea bandwagon would be screaming for everyone else to follow the lead of France rather than pouring ever more money down the expensive and low efficiency renewable drain...er Dream! Renewable Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it is not only the best choice, but the only choice.

Isn't it interesting that nuclear energy as an alternative always gets the silent treatment regardless of party affiliation or economic ideology.

Will this change once fossil fuel depletion starts to bite?

By then it will be far too late.

I don’t like nuclear power, but at this point I see no option to nuclear power. I’m not against wind or solar, but nuclear is something they are not and can not be, Base load.

Tanada is correct that too many folks are jumping on AGW as a way to promote a social agenda. We need AGW action, social action be damned. IF some social good comes from it, and I think it will, then great.

My only caveat to Nuclear is that it is only the second largest way of solving our energy problem. The first, easiest, cheapest, and immediately available is to reduce energy consumption. Doing nuclear in conjunction with energy conservation, and renewables, gets us a long way toward where we have to be.

A big part of the problem is the way the nuclear decommissioning law is written. When it was created, along with all the regulations that grew out of it, the model was based on fossil fuel baseload stations. The problem is, the law forces utilities to set aside a fractional percentage of the income a power plant generates in an untouchable fund. Then when the owners permanently shut a plant down and put it in decommissioning status they get access to those funds that have been locked away but growing for 40 to 50 years. In the last decade certain "investor groups" have taken advantage of this factor by purchasing plants that in several cases have 20 year licensee extensions already certified by the NRC bureaucracy. Then once they own the plant outright they put it in shutdown for decommissioning and suck all those funds out of the trust to pay for it. The fund pays not just for the physical costs of removing the irradiated materials and restoring the plant location to greenfield status, it also pays for the labor costs involved, including the cushy executive salaries of the owners. Basically if you buy a nuclear plant and decommission it you get paid for the next 20 years to make sure the paperwork involved gets filed on time with the NRC.

The way the new owners have successfully argued this is justified is by pointing out that at current prices Natural Gas baseload plants are cheap to build and currently Natural Gas is bottom tier pricing in North America.

Nothing is said about the fact that Natural Gas prices fluctuate over time, or that a 35 year old plant with a 20 year license extension in hand has already paid off all its 'sunk cost' investments so operations are pure profit going forward. Buying Uranium is even cheaper than buying Natural Gas, so a fully sunk nuclear plant is almost a license to print money. But by decommissioning the plant instead the investors not only still get paid a fat salary, they get social cache' with the extreme anti-nuclear wing of American politics.

I was instinctively against nuclear (hyped fear) and due to "our" corrupt and bumbling ways. But upon hearing the detailed and knowlegable contributions of especially Tanada, I am persuaded that Nuclear should and must be part of the eventual replacement for FF.

onlooker wrote:I was instinctively against nuclear (hyped fear) and due to "our" corrupt and bumbling ways. But upon hearing the detailed and knowlegable contributions of especially Tanada, I am persuaded that Nuclear should and must be part of the eventual replacement for FF.

Basically man-made concrete buildings could last only a couple of hundreds of years but the nuclear waste stays radioactive for millions of years. Is not there a contradiction? For example who is going to built a new sarcophage for chernobl when the oil age is over ?

Yonnipun wrote:

onlooker wrote:I was instinctively against nuclear (hyped fear) and due to "our" corrupt and bumbling ways. But upon hearing the detailed and knowlegable contributions of especially Tanada, I am persuaded that Nuclear should and must be part of the eventual replacement for FF.

Basically man-made concrete buildings could last only a couple of hundreds of years but the nuclear waste stays radioactive for millions of years. Is not there a contradiction? For example who is going to built a new sarcophage for chernobl when the oil age is over ?

Same tired BS as always. Any radioactive that has a half life longer than a few hundred years is not a radiological threat to anyone. Which also completely skips over the reality that heavy duty concrete construction built by the Roman Empire 2000 years ago is still just as useful today as it was two millennia ago.

As for Chernobyl the very vast majority of danger from that accident passed a decade ago, but the anti-nukes just can't face the reality and keep the foolish politicians stirred up.