Page 2 of 16

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 19:55:07
by Wildwell
killJOY wrote:Ever hear of "concision"? [*he says as he hits "stop watching topic"*]


Yep, sorry it was a bit long, but a lot of important points contained there that debunks a lot of the stuff on this site and brings PO bank firmly into a transport problem.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 19:56:41
by Ludi
I've been looking into sustainable farming methods as well, lot of work going on in this area.


We're discussing sustainable farming in the Planning for the Future forum, maybe you'd like to join us?

Re: The Silent Lie

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:22:18
by rerere
Wildwell wrote:Maybe time for some of the doomsayers to put up or shut up? The following articles prove most of the doomsayers information on here is nonsense. The only issue is aviation and scalability for road transport.


Really? I didn't see exactly how the waste stream which stays toxic for longer than any human civilization has lasted to date will be maintained?

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:23:33
by seldom_seen
When I read stuff like this, I'm convinced that standard economics is a religion more than anything else. It surely can't be called a science.

It has a few basic tenets. An utter failure (or denial) to recognize limits and a belief that provided the sacred theories are carried out only good things will come. A bountiful prosperous future if only the market is allowed to perform it's magic.

Ironically, it is this religiousity dressed up as the pseudo-science called "economics" that has helped railroad us in to the mess we're in now.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:25:04
by aldente
Wildwell wrote:Did you read we have uranium for some breeder reactors for 1 BILLION-5 BILLION years? No, I didn’t think so. Breeder reactors have been in use on a large scale since 1984.


What are you smoking Wildwell? The Super Phenix is officially closed down since 1998 http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... henix.html

The page is in French and in the last part it says: Matériel contaminés à vendre, which means radioactive contaminated components are for sale. Why don't you by parts of that fabulous Super-Phenix and redesign it so that we have energy for BILLIONS of years.

Also, the equivalent in Germany the "schnelle Bruter of Kalkar" never even made it through its initial stages of operation. Why would the German government give up on a project where Billions of German Marks were invested unless the whole concept was a pipe-dream!

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:38:38
by Tanada
Wildwell wrote:
killJOY wrote:Ever hear of "concision"? [*he says as he hits "stop watching topic"*]


Yep, sorry it was a bit long, but a lot of important points contained there that debunks a lot of the stuff on this site and brings PO bank firmly into a transport problem.


This has been my feeling all along, but then again I have been a fan of Bernie Cohen for 20 years and own a couple of his books.

The way I see it is thus, civilization comes from a few things but the first is communication. The US Constitution even recognized this by authorizing post offices and post roads to be built at gpvernment expense to promote communication within and between the states.

Once you can communicate you can share knowledge about better ways to accomplish things, warn about pitfalls of other approaches and so on and so forth. Communication promotes growth of the knowledge base that every other aspect of civilization grows from.

Communication is more important than even transportation, for most of human history travle was arduos and dangerous, therefore bussiness was handled by writing instructions and sending those instructions to trusted agents for implementation.

Once travle became cheap and easy the bussinessman became a travelor, going in person to conduct bussiness. This made for fewer misunderstandings but the energy cost was huge compared to written instructions and trusted agents in place.

With modern teleconfrencing the need for trusted agents has been removed and the need for travle is more psychological than actual.

The only things which NEED to travle are goods and tourists in the bussiness realm, in government travle will stay pretty much the same because they get the top of the heap in resource demands.

People are addicted to travle to and from work, but for bussiness executives there is no reason they can not all work from home and telecomute.

For manufacturing you will still need workers to arrive and depart on schedual and safely, but if fuel prices for private transport are too high then local workers will have to be hired to replace commuting workers. The market will adjust.

Walmart and other chain stores that depend on cheap good manufactured far away and shipped cheaply to the consumer will suffer a very big hit, the price of transportation will offset part of the gain in buying cheap foreign products. Globalization is driven by cheap transport, if oil remains the primary driver of transportation then globalization will die.

On the other hand the USN and foreign navies have a large experiencial database on building and operating nuclear propelled ships. If oil gets too high to burn as bunker fuel nuclear powered shipping will replace it on the seas of the world.

Air travle depends on cheap oil, but some oil can always be had. If I were in charge of a major airline like United I would have seriously considered investing in internal supplies of fuel. If United bought an oil company and used its own oil without the profit margin from world oil price increases they would not be bankrupt today.

Every problem has a solution, they might not be solutions we want or like but most of them will get us through the rough spots.

I hope :-D

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:41:07
by Cyrus
Wildwell wrote:

Did you read we have uranium for some breeder reactors for 1 BILLION-5 BILLION years? No, I didn’t think so. Breeder reactors have been in use on a large scale since 1984.



What are you smoking Wildwell? The Super Phenix is officially closed down since 1998 http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... henix.html

The page is in French and in the last part it says: Matériel contaminés à vendre, which means radioactive contaminated components are for sale. Why don't you by parts of that fabulous Super-Phenix and redesign it so that we have energy for BILLIONS of years.

Also, the equivalent in Germany the "schnelle Bruter of Kalkar" never even made it through its initial stages of operation. Why would the German government give up on a project where Billions of German Marks were invested unless the whole concept was a pipe-dream!


LOL. Wildwell, he is correct. This theory has been debunked for a few years.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:47:23
by eric_b
Wildwell wrote:Eric: If you actually bothered to read what was written above then you'd realize most of what is discussed on this site is complete bunkum.

Did you read we have uranium for some breeder reactors for 1 BILLION-5 BILLION years? No, I didn’t think so. Breeder reactors have been in use on a large scale since 1984.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... asbre.html

When you have read it all, come back for a debate.


Pffft.

If you want to get pedantic about it, there's enough deuterium
in sea water to supply fusion power until the sun burns out.
Doesn't help us though, and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

Religion

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:49:46
by EddieB
I agree with the above comment that reading stuff like this makes economics sound like a religion. Socialism=hell, Free Markets=heaven. Granted I'm not against free markets by any means, but their short-sightedness has brought us to the critical juncture we are now at with PO. I don't know what kind of an EROIE extracting uranium from sea water carries, but that does seem like a pretty critical point.
As most on this site recognize it is not only PO that we are collectively challenged by. Even if there were ten times the oil that there actually is we're set to run into limits of topsoil or the ability to increase yeilds from a given acre of land (major staple crops are already nearing their theoretical maximum efficiency) If it's not PO it's Peak something else.
Just because Malthus and Rifkin were wrong about the timing doesn't make their basic premise incorrect. In fact, I think if one were to read Jared Diamond's new book there are some clear examples of societies outgrowing their resource base and collapsing. Ecology is VERY clear that this does happen all the time. How close is western civilaztion to that point? I think we're pretty close.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:52:46
by Cyrus
More on the closure of the reactor. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/1997/0 ... 7160n.html

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 20:58:22
by venky
There is no need for the combative or aggressive tone on your part. Not all of us are doomsayers, and even if some of us have a more pessimistic attitute on the future outlook of energy than you, its a conclusion we have come to after researching the issue ourselves. Perhaps we are wrong, but then perhaps you are too.

The issue at hand is far more complicated than can be resolved by reading a few articles; you yourself are as guilty as some of your critics who claim that all your points have been debunked when they have read nothing of your post, I mean you yourself seem to be convinced that everyone who doesn't agree entirely with you is a liar or a fool or both.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 21:03:26
by MonteQuest
Wildwell wrote:
killJOY wrote:Ever hear of "concision"? [*he says as he hits "stop watching topic"*]


Yep, sorry it was a bit long, but a lot of important points contained there that debunks a lot of the stuff on this site and brings PO bank firmly into a transport problem.


Wildwell,

Too bad. Edit it down to short intro paragraphs with a link or I will.

MQ
While these issues are complex, please limit lengthy posts. The forum supports hyperlinks, so detailed and lengthy information can be linked, without posting in it's entirety.

Unread postPosted: Thu 12 May 2005, 22:12:00
by smallpoxgirl
Wildwell wrote:Did you read we have uranium for some breeder reactors for 1 BILLION-5 BILLION years? No, I didn’t think so. Breeder reactors have been in use on a large scale since 1984.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... asbre.html

When you have read it all, come back for a debate.


Hmmm.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization

Could you define "large scale"? 'cause it looks like the "largest implementation" was two reactors, one of which is now defunct.

On the closure of the Superphenix: link

On the cleanup of Britian's closed Dounreay breeder reactor: link

The only attempt to build a large scale breeder reactor in the US was the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, which was canceled in 1983 after 4 years of construction and $1.6 billion of tax payer investment.link

Besides the remarkably poor track record of breeder reactor programs, there is another fundamental problem with your research above. It all assumes that cheap oil will be available to mine and enrich the uranium, reprocess used breeder reactor fuel rods, build the reactors, and dispose of the waste. For a detailed analysis of the energy economics of nuclear power, see: http://www.mnforsustain.org/nukpwr_tyne ... _power.htm

Their conclusion was that if we were to comence building a reactor per month, even with their most optimistic calculations, it would be over 20 years before we even broke even with recouping the invested energy.

Nuclear energy, much like hydrogen technology, is better viewed as a method of storing fossil fuel energy rather than an independently viable energy source. Considering the remarkable toxicity and permenance of it's by products, it is difficult to percieve why anyone would have further interest in it, other than peak-oil denial. Don't worry. It's just a phase you're going through. Next is anger. Then bargaining. Then depression. Finally acceptance. :)

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 00:17:52
by Colorado-Valley
If we have oceans full of free energy, then why is Halliburton destroying whole mountain valleys here searching for coalbed methane?

If salt water provides limitless energy, then why the hell am I paying $2.33 a gallon and a hundred billion dollars a year in Iraq so I can get enough gasoline to run my car?

I think your cornucopia dreams are just dreams for the feeble-minded.

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 00:45:07
by katkinkate
Colorado-Valley wrote:If we have oceans full of free energy, then why is Halliburton destroying whole mountain valleys here searching for coalbed methane?

If salt water provides limitless energy, then why the hell am I paying $2.33 a gallon and a hundred billion dollars a year in Iraq so I can get enough gasoline to run my car?

I think your cornucopia dreams are just dreams for the feeble-minded.


Its there, they know its there. They just haven't figured out how to get it our in an affordable way.

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 01:07:46
by smallpoxgirl
katkinkate wrote:Its there, they know its there. They just haven't figured out how to get it our in an affordable way.


Sorta like all that methane on mars?

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 01:34:41
by katkinkate
Yeah :o Energy, energy everywhere, and no way to make oodles of money out of it.

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 04:51:43
by linlithgowoil
whilst i accept there is probably every chance of maintaining electricity post peak oil (though it will get more and more expensive), i dont think lack of cheap ever more plentiful oil is just a transport issue. the problem is that our economy requires growth, and growth requires more energy use year on year. also, oil is a feedstock for most of our chemicals and plastics and pretty much everything you see around you in every day life.

if oil is declining at 3% per year, then we need some other energy source to meet this decline plus add, say, another 2-3% above this to meet growth demand.

there are tons of alternatives, but the problem they have is scalability and time frame. im pretty sure we could have almost all of our electricity generated by nuclear and renewables - but this could take up to 25 years to achieve. if peak oil hits 2005-2008 as seems likely, then we have a couple of years. thats the problem really.

i totally agree that we could easily go on to a future of renewables, but there will not be the same waste as we have now - we will learn to know the value of energy a lot more. this doesnt mean the end of civilisation, it just means the end of our current way of doing things - which is to encourage and reward waste and over consumption. we shall soon start to reward and encourage conservation (europe does this already via far higher taxes on vehicles etc.).

also - i completely disagree that socialism causes shortages and free markets are the total answer. thats the kind of talk you get from the people at the top of the heap in the free market. they're just terrified that a socialist government will come along and take back there ill gotten gains and share it around. what about Cuba? through government intervention they now have a fairly self sufficient and sustainable economy. this wouldnt have happened in a free market - the free market would have exported all the jobs abroad and left the natives to starve i would imagine. the free market has no conscience and no social responsibility.

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 05:35:27
by Madpaddy
Smallpoxgirl,

It's not methane from Mars - it's methane from Uranus and you have to be careful how you say that one.

Unread postPosted: Fri 13 May 2005, 05:57:00
by Wildwell
Proof whatever you put in front of some people; they won’t believe it because of political sympathies or just because they are unhappy with the current situation. I’ve seen things time and time again which don’t chime with reality and the more you research stuff the more you realize 80% of stuff on this site is BS. Yes there are problems with scalability and aviation in particular, but it doesn’t mean it’s unsolvable. I’ve noted that people completely ignore recycling for resources too. How many people know 70% of ‘new’ steel product is recycled?

Get depressed all you like, but resource led problems on this plant are one of our least concerns. Environmental degradation. Nuclear war, Asteroid strikes, Earth changes, Climate change, Super bugs and some elements of technology are greater problems.

People frequently state 'we couldn't build dams, roads and railways because of lack of cheap oil. Completely ignorant to the fact that the early stuff (and most railways) were built by hand, not JCB.

BTW most of what was quoted above was written by scientists, not economists. Here’s a bit more on nuclear.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/minerals.html

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

And if you don’t like nuclear there’s solar

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/pub ... 4_1_13.asp

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldU ... eepin.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documen ... solar.html