ROCKMAN wrote: Also known for giving HUGE bonuses when the hit goals. And elsame size from VP to receptionist. I think last one was $60,000. Very big on rewarding success in a big way.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt recently proposed eliminating federal tax credits for wind and solar power, arguing that they should “stand on their own and compete against coal and natural gas and other sources” as opposed to “being propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits....” Stand on their own? Pruitt surely must be aware that fossil fuels have been feasting at the government trough for at least 100 years. Renewables, by comparison, have received support only since the mid-1990s and, until recently, have had to subsist on scraps. Perhaps a review of the facts can set Administrator Pruitt straight. There’s a strong case to be made that Congress should terminate subsidies for fossil fuels and extend them for renewables, not the other way around. A Century (or Two) of Subsidies To promote domestic energy production, the federal government has been serving
peripato wrote:Fossil fuels are the subsidy. The modern world, including high-tech renewables, and 6 billion+ people wouldn't be around today without it.
Tanada wrote:The real kicker is the roads, bridges, airports, seaports and railroads used to transport all the materials from source to finished product before the done deal is shipped to the installer and begins producing energy. You can ignore this embedded energy all you want, but those roads and bridges need to be maintained and/or replaced at some point. If your 'renewable' system does not create enough energy surplus to do so the whole system starts decaying and falling apart pretty quickly.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Tanada wrote:The real kicker is the roads, bridges, airports, seaports and railroads used to transport all the materials from source to finished product before the done deal is shipped to the installer and begins producing energy. You can ignore this embedded energy all you want, but those roads and bridges need to be maintained and/or replaced at some point. If your 'renewable' system does not create enough energy surplus to do so the whole system starts decaying and falling apart pretty quickly.
True. So in 5 or 7 decades (or likely longer), when we might start to actually see truly "running out" or even "serious" scarcity of FF's like the combination of crude oil, coal, and natural gas (there is a LOT of that in total, even though it is dirty and harmful to burn), THEN we will need to take a look at the state of the world at that time.
1). Clearly, green energy will be hugely built out compared to now. We can't know to what extent, but with any luck, except for some air travel and some industry (including infrastructure building and maintenance) - green tech is handling the job.
2). When push comes to shove and real scarcity of FF's is consistently making the price high (as supply/demand surely will ensure, net of any government subsidies), then how much adaptation, substitution, and doing without can we manage?
a). For one example, I believe if push comes to shove, we can do without commercial air travel. It will be inconvenient, but with a little planning, if people have to wait a week instead of a day or two to get some item they want from overseas, few people will die. It might cause inventories of medical supplies, for example, to need to be larger, but inconvenience isn't doom.
b). I don't see why it would be impossible to recycle asphalt for roads and maintain current roads and bridges without using FF's -- or using little FF's. I'm assuming that the vast majority of the road materials can be recycled, reheated, and the roads can be largely repaved with that. In 5 to 7 decdes, solar, wind, batteries, and the systems that run on them should be extremely sophisticated. Roads might be significantly more expensive if it all the material can't be recycled. That's inconvenient, but not doom.
c). At some point, if things really get bad, but gradually, I really believe that adaptation like the world adopting a significantly smaller overall population profile can happen. That should take a LOT of stress off the carrying capacity concerns if the total population is more like one billion than the 10 or 15 billion it could easily be by then if not constrained by policy. Also, if push comes to shove, wealthy (US middle class and above) CAN do with less. Whining about having less doesn't equate to doom. So between consuming less, having a much smaller population, and things being more efficient, the world might well run on only something like 4 to 5% of the resources it does today. That's not doom -- it is just very different.
d). I've been reading up on modern A/I and where it is likely going re computer technology. In 5 to 7 decades there should be intelligent robotic A/I and labor limited only by resources. This could be powered by batteries and green energy. If more labor is needed to do things more efficiently, it's not like more labor won't be available.
....
I'm not seeing realistic reasons humanity can't survive and even prosper. I'm just seeing reasons that normal BAU consume-all-you-can-afford-and-borrow can't happen endlessly. I'll opine that only the most corny will deny that BAU growth can continue unabated for, say, thousands of years.
Ibon wrote:The 4WD road leading up to our place here in Panama is not maintained by the Ministry of Public Works who look after roads. The land owners who all use this road chip in every year to maintain it.
Anyway, there is a rock quarry half way down the road of a volcanic rock that a geologist once told me was an ash layer. The rock is gray and breaks with a sledge hammer. Every year at this time when the rainy season comes to an end we fill up our pick up truck with these gray rocks and boulders and deposit them in all the pot holes and a couple of my staff spend the day pounding the big rocks with sledge hammers until they flatten out on the road bed.
This just reminds me that muscle power is still the fall back in maintaining roads.
The Romans built very nice roads without diesel and back hoes and tractors.
onlooker wrote:Despite my reflexive pessimism at the full extent of our plight, I think Renewable and Alternative energy sources are desperately needed to rev up. The longer we wait, the more implausible any effective in mass transition will be. We are too embedded in in a fossil fueled Economy. So that discontinuity and problems are bound to manifest but the longer we wait to attempt a full transition, the worse they will be. Pragmatism and sacrifice better supersede political
expediency and comforts soon. As one Oil Industry insider said we better leave oil before it leaves us
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Ibon wrote:The 4WD road leading up to our place here in Panama is not maintained by the Ministry of Public Works who look after roads. The land owners who all use this road chip in every year to maintain it.
Anyway, there is a rock quarry half way down the road of a volcanic rock that a geologist once told me was an ash layer. The rock is gray and breaks with a sledge hammer. Every year at this time when the rainy season comes to an end we fill up our pick up truck with these gray rocks and boulders and deposit them in all the pot holes and a couple of my staff spend the day pounding the big rocks with sledge hammers until they flatten out on the road bed.
This just reminds me that muscle power is still the fall back in maintaining roads.
The Romans built very nice roads without diesel and back hoes and tractors.
So for a good yardstick on when meaningful AI, household robots, and cheap, practical green energy to free us from fossil fuels have "reasonably" arrived -- I'd say that when you can have your robotic crew do that job (including gathering the rock) without a lot of supervision (just lay out the parameters, like you would the human crew and they do a decent job), and the vehicles, robots, and equipment are powered by the sun, wind, and batteries and are affordable enough that you're willing to use them instead of human labor for such jobs, we've "arrived".
I think we'll easily be there within roughly 3 decades. That's one of the things I find attractive about the idea of the progress in AI. As I age, let the robots carry, stack, clean, etc. and free me up to do stuff that I'd rather spend my time on. The problem is early adopters will spend more time supervising and repairing broken stuff and redoing work than will be worth it.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Tanada wrote:The real kicker is the roads, bridges, airports, seaports and railroads used to transport all the materials from source to finished product before the done deal is shipped to the installer and begins producing energy. You can ignore this embedded energy all you want, but those roads and bridges need to be maintained and/or replaced at some point. If your 'renewable' system does not create enough energy surplus to do so the whole system starts decaying and falling apart pretty quickly.
True. So in 5 or 7 decades (or likely longer), when we might start to actually see truly "running out" or even "serious" scarcity of FF's like the combination of crude oil, coal, and natural gas (there is a LOT of that in total, even though it is dirty and harmful to burn), THEN we will need to take a look at the state of the world at that time.
1). Clearly, green energy will be hugely built out compared to now. We can't know to what extent, but with any luck, except for some air travel and some industry (including infrastructure building and maintenance) - green tech is handling the job.
2). When push comes to shove and real scarcity of FF's is consistently making the price high (as supply/demand surely will ensure, net of any government subsidies), then how much adaptation, substitution, and doing without can we manage?
a). For one example, I believe if push comes to shove, we can do without commercial air travel. It will be inconvenient, but with a little planning, if people have to wait a week instead of a day or two to get some item they want from overseas, few people will die. It might cause inventories of medical supplies, for example, to need to be larger, but inconvenience isn't doom.
b). I don't see why it would be impossible to recycle asphalt for roads and maintain current roads and bridges without using FF's -- or using little FF's. I'm assuming that the vast majority of the road materials can be recycled, reheated, and the roads can be largely repaved with that. In 5 to 7 decdes, solar, wind, batteries, and the systems that run on them should be extremely sophisticated. Roads might be significantly more expensive if it all the material can't be recycled. That's inconvenient, but not doom.
c). At some point, if things really get bad, but gradually, I really believe that adaptation like the world adopting a significantly smaller overall population profile can happen. That should take a LOT of stress off the carrying capacity concerns if the total population is more like one billion than the 10 or 15 billion it could easily be by then if not constrained by policy. Also, if push comes to shove, wealthy (US middle class and above) CAN do with less. Whining about having less doesn't equate to doom. So between consuming less, having a much smaller population, and things being more efficient, the world might well run on only something like 4 to 5% of the resources it does today. That's not doom -- it is just very different.
d). I've been reading up on modern A/I and where it is likely going re computer technology. In 5 to 7 decades there should be intelligent robotic A/I and labor limited only by resources. This could be powered by batteries and green energy. If more labor is needed to do things more efficiently, it's not like more labor won't be available.
....
I'm not seeing realistic reasons humanity can't survive and even prosper. I'm just seeing reasons that normal BAU consume-all-you-can-afford-and-borrow can't happen endlessly. I'll opine that only the most corny will deny that BAU growth can continue unabated for, say, thousands of years.
ralfy wrote:Five to seven decades? As it is, ave. ecological footprint is above biocapacity, and the former is not that high. And that's for the current population. And then there are the effects of global warming.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:ralfy wrote:Five to seven decades? As it is, ave. ecological footprint is above biocapacity, and the former is not that high. And that's for the current population. And then there are the effects of global warming.
And? I clearly said at the end of my post that ignoring BAU growth for the long run leads to total disaster.
I'm not saying anything like we can sail along with no problems. I'm saying it doesn't look to me like we will run OUT of fossil fuels for at least 5 to 7 decades, given the abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, and oil we know about. And let's face it -- people will go after those supplies for the right price when they're in demand -- unless enough green energy radically lowers that demand (which I'm rooting for over the next few decades, but we'll have to see).
Meanwhile, AGW will have truly nasty effects by 2100, but aside from arm waving, I'm not seeing much in the way of credible mainstream stuff to confidently predict humanity can't last 50 or 70 years -- as bad as AGW is.
By Heather Goldstone & Elsa Partan Living Lab Radio Francis O'Sullivan, MIT Energy Initiative A protest this weekend at the site of a proposed natural gas power generator on the Cape Cod Canal highlights the controversy surrounding the rise of natural gas. Some say it’s an improvement over other fossil fuels, and a necessary bridge to a more renewable energy system. Others say it’s still a fossil fuel, and we should be investing in solar instead. The director of research at MIT’s Energy Initiative, Francis O’Sullivan, says neither side is completely right – or wrong. In a 2011 report on the Future of Natural Gas, O’Sullivan and colleagues predicted that natural gas would play an increasing role in energy generation and could provide deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to coal. Then, in a 2015 report on the Future of Solar Energy, the
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests