Open thread on climate solutions. Please try and stay within a mile or two of the overall topic.
Reader Interactions
378 Responses to "Forced responses: Jun 2020"
nigeljsays
Killian @193
“186 nigelj he just keeps forgetting to mention this so everyone misinterprets him over and over”
“No, I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day…..Given you clearly DO have the context in your head, it’s petty as fuck to claim the obvious must be repeated ad nauseum. Worse, it’s a blatant excuse to avoid the issues.”
I have the context in MY head because I’ve read plenty of your comments. What about those that haven’t read all your comments? What about Piotr, who appears to be new to this website? What about people who forget things? Its astoninishing that you cannot grasp this. You are either careless, or incredibly self absorbed.
Its so easy to fix the problem. Be clear about the issue. If you are claiming renewables are not sustainable explain also that you are not suggesting they can never be used, just that you think we should be prudent in their use, or whatever point you want to make….Are you happy that people constantly misinterpret you?
Al Bundysays
Nigel: If you want to act like an utter prick and hoard gazillions
AB: Yeah. Have you noticed how GOPpers always crow about how everyone MUST be a total asshat or everything falls apart? “Why on Earth would I give a meal to a starving person?? I earn NOTHING by doing so. In fact I LOSE!”
Yo Zebra, if I see you choking I should just enjoy the show? WHY should I expend MY time and effort saving your life?
“Greed is good” my ass. “Become a more complete prick” is a counterproductive goal. Why are all GOPpers laser focused on becoming perfectly selfish slime? “Efficiency”? Makes me think of German trains around 1940. Ya really want to live in an “efficient” society?
Al Bundysays
Ponder…
Organization A has 10,000 workers and 10 owners. They make a million widgets using $1 million in raw materials and sell them for $11. Workers get $9 million and owners get $1 million.
Organization B, same except grossed $8 million with workers getting $1 million and owners $6 million.
Which organization made more money? I say “A”. Shoving the team’s earnings into a couple pockets does not raise the take, just the unfairness.
Al Bundysays
Piotr,
They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate. Now, I said that my opinion of you went down because you’re bulldogging a stupid position. And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment).
OK. Valid or not, my diss makes sense. Now your toss back. Why has your respect for me declined?
Without a valid answer your position is preschool.
And I still have a high opinion of you. Nobody’s perfect.
Al Bundysays
Of course any city can feed itself with a few 500 story nuclear powered farms. Lights make a grand dump load.
But it’s kinda insane. There is no reason for a city to get anywhere near all of its calories from internal sources, especially if moo and booze are included. Cows are big, heavy, and designed to eat, and so poop, as much as possible. Housing them off the ground floor isn’t happening and read about turn of the 20th century cities and horse manure for a whiff of the sewage problem.
I don’t have time to dig through long threads just to find an ill-defined link someone put there. Fortunately, I did find a reference at Michele Kearney’s blog and read it a couple days ago. (I dont have time to keep up with everything here in real time either.) And I have few quibbles with these points from the book (which I numbered):
Some highlights from the book:
1) Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
2) The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
3) The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
4) 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
5) We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
6) Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
7) Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
8) “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
9) Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
10) The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
I have no direct knowledge and thus no opinion on 6, 8, 9 and 10, but I agree with all the rest. And given Shellenberger’s willingness to put evidence before dogma, I’m sure that the heatwave-induced dieoffs of Australian wildlife will change his tune on the mass extinction question as well. It hasn’t made it into the scientific literature, so not on his radar… yet. But it will be.
Killiansays
I have the context in MY head because I’ve read plenty of your comments
Only you and Al are babies around here. Everyone else has been around for years. They know my thoughts.
Killiansays
And this is the book we used as areference to show permaculture in schools was not only legit, but NORMAL in Australia.
Ah, so now you know my mind so well that you can tell me whether I need clarification or not.
You mind has nothing to do with it. The questiin was clear, it was specific, with YEARS of context and interactions behind it, as well as a clear statement ONLY answers to that question would be engaged.
You are afraid of the implications, Kevin, doing anything you canto avoid acknowledging everything I have warned of since 2007 is happening.
Stop being a petulant, deflecting child; focus on the goddamned problem.
Killiansays
But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day,
I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.
zebrasays
From The Moderators
“Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.”
nigeljsays
Engineer-Poet @206
Well if you cant be bothered reading a few comments that take about one minute to scan, and the link I gave you why the hell did you ask for references? And you have cherry picked Shellenburgers quotes just related to mitigation. My comment related primarily to the SCIENCE.
At least read my comment on the UV thread, and the new article posted on Shellenburgers book on this website “Shellenberger’s op-ad.
I don’t disagree with him about nuclear power, but the rest of his commentary is mostly crap. For example ” 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%” So what? Its still less than 0.2% of the worlds total land area from calcs I have seen. His spin grates on my nerves. People should make honest answers that state the full facts or shut up.
nigeljsays
Killian @210
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.”
Its not a straw man fallacy. You dont know what a straw man is. What I said is a fundamental truism that needs saying. Its then a question of how far we should go to try to conserve non renewable resources.
I even quite like your posted idea of looking at things humans do and avoid using non renewable resources if we can use renewables instead, like timber. At least this appears to be what you are saying.
But its just not a simple issue. Doing things using renewable resources has to make sense. If we tried to make wind towers, cars and aircraft out of timber right now, we would risk running out of timber and enough land to grow timber on, and it is not as effective as using things like steel, and we are conserving incredibly abundant materials like iron and aluminium which doesn’t make a lot of sense. I do see sense in being more prudent with the use of rarer materials like cobalt.
So yes we should use scarce non renewable materials more frugally, that is virtually commonsense, but even if we do we will eventually run out and be forced back to hunter gatherer culture ( I think its unlikely but possible). You should be happy with that so I dont understand what your problem is. Relax.
Your implied suggestion at 208 that I rubbished permaculture farming IS a strawman. I simply stated a fact that there’s no hard evidence it is more productive than conventional farming.
And yes I’m repeating myself and will go on doing so until I get sensible answers and comments from people.
nigeljsays
Killian @209, all Kevin did was ask you to clarify what you meant exactly by the term idefinitely in “Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources.” Its a completely fair question, and I almost asked myself. Because you have made so many contradictory statements in the past, suggesting sustainability has to mean literally forever, then when AB challenged you on this, you rubbished him and when I said renewables could be sustainable just for a long time if we recycled them, you did not dispute that. So I can totally understand why Kevin asked for a clarification.
Get over yourself. Just damn well clarify things and stop second guessing why people ask for clarification. You waste pages in silly disputes like this.
If uranium is 2 ppm by mass of Earth’s crust, and the average crustal density is 3.5, then the top 10 km contains about 36 trillion tons of uranium. All of this uranium is decaying away by itself and the biosphere has no use for it or its decay products, so human consumption doesn’t take from anything else. Continental uranium is carried to the oceans by weathering and oceanic crust uranium is exchanged with seawater by hydrothermal processes, so essentially all of that uranium is available for human use on geological time scales.
Fission of a mere 10,000 tons of uranium per year would supply several times current total human energy consumption. That is less than the rate of decay of U-238. Earth has perhaps 500 million years before increase of the solar constant drives it into a wet greenhouse followed by Venusian conditions, so at 10,000 tpy we’d only consume about 5 trillion of the 36 trillion tons available.
This is quite manageable, and it is also sustainable for the remaining lifespan of Earth’s biosphere.
siddsays
Beerling et al outline GtonCO2/yr capture by spreading basalt dust on cropland:
Stumbled across this: “Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air. It may be best near-term way to remove CO2, say scientists, but cutting fossil fuel use remains critical…..” Seems similar to some things EP has posted.
E-P 206: 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
BPL: Nonsense. Do the math. I did.
Al Bundysays
Killian: (quoting someone) But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day,
Killian: I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.
AB: I think you are too much of a stupid ass to A: know how to create electricity in significant amounts sustainably,
And B: to EVER actually say ANYTHING except to insult others.
So actually CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING, asshole.
Electricity. Is it allowed in Killian’s Utopia? If so, describe the biggest most intense use of electricity in Killian’s Stupidistan.
Piotrsays
Al Bundy: “They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate.”
Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
>Now, I said that my opinion of you went down because you’re bulldogging a stupid position.
Whether it is stupid – it is for everybody to decide for themselves
– see the attachment at the end.
>And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment).
By “And you know it” you imply that you have proven me wrong and that I knowing it
insist on my “stupid position”? Neither is true – you didn’t disprove my arguments in (175), instead you are disproving arguments I …didn’t make:
– I DIDN’T “bring up catalyst”,
– I DIDN’T discuss your “hidden pass” analogy, since my argument does not require hidden passes.
So your claim: “And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment)” tells something, but not about me, but about you.
> OK. Valid or not, my diss makes sense.
Huh? If your diss were not valid – it would still “make sense”???
>Now your toss back
to show that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
> Why has your respect for me declined? Without a valid answer your position is preschool.
Huh? Have you read my post? My throwing your own words at then end was just the CONCLUSION – the rest of my post was that “valid answer” WHY my opinion of you declined. Since you obviously missed it (“Without a valid answer your position is preschool”) – here it is again:
===== my post (175) =====
Al Bundy (157) “Your “stability” argument is specious. EP was speaking of fuels, not rocks.
Piotr (175): The discussion is about “energy storage” – ergo: fuel AND products of their combustion. Nobody talked about “rocks”. But please do lecture others about speciousness of _their_ arguments. […]
AB>Just as laughable is to say that the only stable fuels (remember, you dissed EP’s FUEL comment) are carbon dioxide, water, and other such stable stuff.
P: Since the discussion is about energy storage using CH4, we don’t discuss [“fuels” or “rocks”], but the thermodynamics of the reaction: CH4 +2O2 CO2 + 2H2O.
Definition: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its lowest energy state” => the right side (CO2+2H2O) has more than 800kJ/mol LESS energy than the left side => CO2 side is MUCH MORE thermodynamically stable than the CH4 side.
Since I don’t know of any practical reaction that would allow extraction of energy from the right side – why would I call CO2 …“FUEL” ????
So your derision is based on your … inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia.
AB > My opinion of you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve
Sorry, I am only concerned about the opinions of people I respect. My respect for you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve.
=============================
You current post does not help on the respect score either…
nigeljsays
Schellenburger said “100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%”
This is wrong of course.Here are some interesting and credible calculations and graphics on how much land renewable electricity generation would really need, less than 0.5% of the worlds land surface area.
When I first read this, I read it as BY 50% by mistake, hence I said “so what, it still only requires using about 0.2% of the worlds land area”.
Piotrsays
Killian (138) – nonresponsive
“Please do not misinform/lie” or “ LOL… That’s complete (non-pejorative) ignorance”
WITHOUT including a shred of proof for these – are NOT arguments.
And your attempts at sarcasm… whau:
“This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment” [capitalization of “ASS” – as in Killian’s original]
What were you thinking? ‘- With that lame pun I will certainly come across as witty’???
Piotrsays
Killian (139): Piotr (133): we … didn’t attempt to falsify your definition, but merely a) questioned its cognitive value” (Nigel showing it be a useless tautology: ”No modern technology is sustainable by this definition?
K: No, you didn’t. That’s bullshit hyperbole.
Huh? Which is this “bullshit hyperbole”? That tautologies have little cognitive value and therefore are useless?
K: [Nigel], he correctly stated a simple truth that is apparently beyond you.
– If by this “simple truth” you meant your tautology – then apparently it wasn’t beyond me – see Killian: “To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate.” I was one of these “gentlemen”.
– Or if you meant that Nigel considered your tautology insightful or useful – then, well, let’s read what he wrote next:
“Only stone age and timber based technologies are truly sustainable by this definition. We cant live like this right now even if we wanted, because there are too many people to rely just on timber for a fuel and building source.” And continues: “I think it’s better to define sustainable as” [ and then he proposes a … definition different than your “simple truth”.]
>> b) questioned your application of it (your dismissing “good” (existing renewables))
Killian: Are you just stupid or are you a liar. I have never, literally, dismissed “renewables.
P: Your past is irrelevant here – your argument in any given thread has to be self-contained and stand on its own, without the need to study author’s posting history. In this thread – you joined the discussion about renewables to …. talk how no modern technologies meet your criteria of sustainability. To me this amounts to “dismissing renewables” since they don’t meet your definition, but if I was wrong then you would not have a problem with offering a more likely (Occam’s razor!) explanation of your posts in this thread. And no – “Are you just stupid or are you a liar” does not count as this more likely explanation.
Most people post to convince others to their point of view, or to get an ego kick by “winning” a discussion. You are achieving neither: you don’t convince people by showing them your contempt with your patronizing, tone:
– “To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate. That concludes Phase I.”
– “you are both making a really huge error in your accounting. It’s really obvious. Think…”
“-This is the last dip into the rabbit hole of idiocy: nigelj and Kevin:[…]
– “You’re becoming a good little regenerative systems denialist.”
– “I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day.”
And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments:
– “Are you just stupid or are you a liar”,
– “Please do not misinform/lie”,
– “That’s bullshit hyperbole” ,
– “This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment”
(some examples from only 2 short posts)
Some of us might be interested to hear how you see achieving your goals of sustainable/regenerative future, but instead we get …that. What a waste.
Piotrsays
E. Poet (215) let’s define “sustainable”. If uranium is 2 ppm by mass of Earth’s crust, and the average crustal density is 3.5, then the top 10 km contains about 36 trillion tons of uranium.
Some poets like to overstate their case – how much uranium has been mined from oceanic crust, or in the lower 9.8km of the top 10 km of the continental crust? The proper number would be amount of uranium that is close enough to the surface and in high enough concentration to make it economically viable. Maybe a lot – but for sure many ORDERS of magnitude less than “about 36 trillion tons”
More important, being “sustainable” is not limited to “is there enough of it to be mined” – there have to be the consideration – are the effects of using of the technology ALSO “sustainable”:
– Is mining ore, processing it, using in power plants, long-term disposal, and the transport between all these stages sustainable and safe to people
– Is it economically sustainable – I doubt the promise by Lewis Straus, not an amateur but the chairman of the US Atomic Energy commission at the time, that the nuclear power will be too cheap to meter, will come to fruition
– Other the other effects sustainable, particularly in built in less stable parts of the world:
* nuclear proliferation – N. Korea or Iran did not start with: let me build the bomb, but we want to use atom for peaceful applications
* vulnerability to terrorist attacks or to providing material for dirty bomb to the terrorists
* potential targets in war – you don’t need to have nuclear weapon to inflict nuclear damage
* vulnerability to earthquakes and other massive impacts (an asteroid hitting near one of the many power plants we would need)
* vulnerability to social collapse – if there is not enough time to safely shut it down and safely remove and hide the nuclear material
-etc.
Killiansays
nigelj: all Kevin did was ask you to clarify what you meant exactly by the term idefinitely in “Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources.” Its a completely fair question
Do you need stop, go, left, right defined, too? It wasn’t a fair question, it wasn’t a needed question. It was intentional bullshit to avoid the question. By definition, an indefinite period of time CANNOT BE DEFINED, else it’s a definite time period.
This is a beyond stupid line of argument by both of you.
Killiansays
nigelj: Killian @210
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.”
Its not a straw man fallacy.
It absolutely is: Who has suggested zero electricity? You’re arguing against a condition nobody has suggested. You are trying to paint persons like me as absurd by lying about what is being argued.
Killiansays
Peanut Gallery, shut up, stop acting like brain-dead little twits, take the situation seriously. Answer the question:
Phase II
We previously established:
Define “regenerative”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources while enhancing and improving ecosystem functioning and productivity (ecosystem services.)
nigelj: No modern technology is sustainable by this definition.
Adam Lea: A bicycle made from wood comes very close.
The above having gone unchallenged, and being accurate, what are the implications for solving climate, resource and ecological problems? As well as sociopolitical and economic…
That is, if almost everything “developed” and/or industrialized nations do is planet-killing, what direction do we go in to solve these problems?
Looked at from the opposite side, what *does* a regenerative society look like?
(I.e., how do you create a regenerative society if you have no idea what one *is?*)
nigeljsays
Piotr @223,
“but instead we get …that. What a waste.”
We have been getting “… that” and worse for the last three years and pointing it out to no avail . Sigh.
But I will give you Killians ideas because I suspect you wont get anything clear cut out of him and it might stop screeds of conflicted discussions. He thinks renewables are not sustainable because we will run out of metals and so on, which is a valid argument given enough time, and mining can damage the environment, and that we should completely give up on capitalism.
BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare. The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera . Its the simple living low tech. philosophy, which doesn’t need definition because itreally defines itself.
For myself I cant see a good enough reason to go that far, but I think theres a fairly compelling and multifacetted case that we should reduce waste, recycle, and reduce population growth and look at changing how we farm to a more soil friendly model, and definitely mitigate the climate problem.
Al Bundysays
EP: And given Shellenberger’s willingness to put evidence before dogma, I’m sure that the heatwave-induced dieoffs of Australian wildlife will change his tune on the mass extinction question as well.
AB: Ooo, a test! Good job, EP. I suggest we withhold final judgement for about 90 days. Is EP’s hypothesis correct?
Al Bundysays
Piotr: Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
AB: Well…
Mirroring is mostly subconscious. Your conscious mind’s involvement is mostly to come up with an excuse.
So, if your comeback makes sense and bites with humor, it could be a pure insult. If not (and it did not) then your words were likely mirroring.
Piotr: I DIDN’T “bring up catalyst”,
AB: I brought up catalysts with ‘finding a path around the hill’. You carried it on by chiding EP for using the direct conversion’s losses cuz there could be another way. Yep, could be. Find it and post. But seriously, wyf are we talking about if not catalysts?
So, since you’re going to stick with, for example, my example, not yours, feel free to adjust: ‘nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, I think this conversation just detonated. Take care.
Al Bundysays
I’ve been working on pistons and connecting rods. They’re responsible for maybe 60% of an engine’s friction. I believe my design will get rid of most of the friction. Care to do me a favor and look at my concept, EP?
Al Bundysays
Nigel and EP on artificial weathering via spreading rock,
Yes. My lateral low berm/dike idea for rivers uses the same chemistry by filling the linear dry wells on the upstream sides of the berms with appropriate gravel. Stores CO2, essentially eliminates damaging floods, and recharges aquifers.
Al Bundysays
Piotr,
Quite observant about our resident, uh, aloof insulter. After 20 years (and he thinks that I’m still a newbie) I still have no clue whether electricity is involved in his vision. Everyone gives guesses about wtf is hidden behind the slashing deluge of insults, but that just brings more sleet:
‘I’ve been calling you names for decades and you STILL don’t know the particulars of my genius vision?!? Followed by #@@!#*!!!.
That’s interaction with Killian. 1% content and 99% insult… If you’re lucky. Of course folks don’t remember (or take in (like the ‘invisible’ guy in a gorilla suit that waves at you while you’re too busy counting basketballs to notice)).
And around and round we go. Where it stops depends on who dies first.
Killiansays
Localizing is not radical, it’s not new. It’s back to t future.
Don’t listen to dullard ideologues whose only contribution to the conversation is, “Can’t be done!”
BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.
You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.
The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .
And that’s just another flat out lie.
Al Bundysays
Special K: Lies never end here:
…N: BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.
Special K: You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.
…N: The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .
And that’s just another flat out lie.
AB: So it seems even your poster boy for ‘knows wtf Special K is talking about’ doesn’t have a clue. And it’s wayyyyy obvious that he’s tried his best.
Your explanation, that 100% of the folks you choose to hang all got together and decided to…
A conspiracy! Now I’m peeved that nobody invited me.
Al Bundysays
Some answers Special K:
After conversion is complete..
How is glass made? What additives are used? Is the glass 21st century clear, triple-glazed with argon or vacuum? Do windows slide like butter on a griddle?
Buildings. Sheetrock finish? Paint? Insulation?
Iron after all mines and salvage runs out? Higher tech alloys? You don’t melt scrap and get forged supersteel.
Electricity. Again, what is the most intensive use of juice before all mines run out? after all scrap runs out?
Where do you see us, your loyal subjects, in 5 years if we crown you? 10? 20? How do we live? Keep our houses? Vehicles?
Yeah, morphed to the transition…
You have the stage at least until the first insult. After that Sesame Street K might start tossing letters again
nigeljsays
Killian @235
“BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.”
“You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.”
It should be obvious I was quoting just one example given how I worded things.
“The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .”
“And that’s just another flat out lie.”
No it isnt. When I challenged you about last year how we would attain the very high levels of energy reduction you have posted (80 – 90%) you said “rug up” and cook using wood stoves. Your trouble is your memory is either awful or selective.
And if you think these are lies, please at least spell out how you would expect people to stay warm and cook, and in specific detail please, with reference to actual appliances and methods. And don’t give us answers like “whatevers appropriate” or it as to be “designed by location” or using “permaclture design”. You must have some overall idea, and cannot post big claims about how much energy you think we should or can reduce things by, without a workable, quantified and prescriptive plan.
nigeljsays
Killian @226
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“It absolutely is (a straw man fallacy): Who has suggested zero electricity? You’re arguing against a condition nobody has suggested. You are trying to paint persons like me as absurd by lying about what is being argued.”
I didn’t say anyone had suggested we use zero electricity, and I’m not trying to ridicule you. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would have said It would be an absurdity not to use electricity as Killian has suggested / or as has been suggested on this thread. I deliberately didn’t do that and as far as Im aware you havent suggested it. Maybe I could have worded it better, but its not a straw man or was not intended as such.
I’m making the point IF we use your definition of sustainability meaning ‘indefinitely’ (effectively forever) then we are effectively saying the use of non renewable resources are not 100% sustainable, and they aren’t sustainable by that definition. People will NATURALLY react that by thinking you are suggesting we not use such non renewable resources (eg metals and fossil fuels for petrochemical use), because we are also promoting that people act sustainably. I have told you this before. Why do I have to repeat it again?
So we have to be very clear sustainability indefinitely doesn’t mean we cant use non renewable resources, and said whenever the issue comes up. And it is virtually self evidence that we can use non renewable resources, because it would be an obvious, self evident absurdity not to use them. Ie we need no further proof or debate unless its for the sake of having silly discussions for fun.
I’m afraid Piotr is right you have created a bit of a tautology. The only way out is to be very clear that we can still use those resources, and not leave people hanging.
The other possible definition of sustainability is just that we have to make things last a long time (which could need further definition) or as long as possible. Then we don’t get into this problem of people jumping to conclusions that you mean non renewables cannot be used. I prefer this definition, although I accept its not perfect. Sometimes perfect is unattainable.
However it probably doesn’t matter too much because whatever definition is used it always comes down to how prudent we should be in using non renewable resources, ie how many and how fast. I have explained at 228 how far I think we should go to slow down the rate we use non renewable resources. It seems we absolutely should do those things, yet absurd to me to go beyond that. There will be a sweet spot that optimises outcomes.
And obviously we are using some renewable resources too fast for example the fisheries and natural forests like the Amazon. And there we get into another challenge because if we slow down the use of non renewables it creates pressure to use renewables too fast.
nigeljsays
Killian @234 says “Don’t listen to dullard ideologues whose only contribution to the conversation is, “Can’t be done!”
This is the opening paragraph of Killians posted source material: “Read about this inspiring journey that Nicaragua took, where 90% of the food consumed in Nicaragua is produced within the national borders, 80%of it by peasants. “A nation that cannot feed itself is not free”
And is this not a straw man of your own? Who has said it cant be done? Not me. Not anyone else as far as I can see.
I tend to think countries should try to be self sufficient in food, but I support free trade in most other things. However some small countries are so short of land and have so many people they probably cant be self sufficient in food and others have to import food for other reasons as in the list below:
“We previously established:Define “regenerative”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources while enhancing and improving ecosystem functioning and productivity (ecosystem services.)…..nigelj: No modern technology is sustainable by this definition……Adam Lea: A bicycle made from wood comes very close……”
“The above having gone unchallenged, and being accurate, what are the implications for solving climate, resource and ecological problems? As well as sociopolitical and economic… That is, if almost everything “developed” and/or industrialized nations do is planet-killing, what direction do we go in to solve these problems?”
I don’t accept everything said above by Killian, but for the sake of ‘simplicity’ its clear hes right to the extent that industrialisation is harsh on the planet. And imho therefore ultimately humanity as well. So we need to reduce the planet killing components of industrialisation. So we stop, or dramatically reduce dumping toxic waste (and climate changing waste) into the land, oceans and atmosphere, or at least render it contained in the case of nuclear waste. We make sure after we have closed down mines we reinstate the land. We stop gobbling up natural habitats for farm land. There are other things but these are a couple of the main problems.
We know how to do virtually all this from a technical perspective and it wont kill the ‘economy’. The problem is a lack of motivation amongst other things.
Another solution is just to stop industrialisation itself, or massively cut it back, but this will meet with exactly the same lack of motivation, pretty self evidently more so than just reducing dumping waste. And it is a crude solution like using a brick to hammer in a nail. That said, there are a range of benefits to be gained by at least slowing industrialisation down a bit.
“Looked at from the opposite side, what *does* a regenerative society look like?” “(I.e., how do you create a regenerative society if you have no idea what one *is?*)”
The only truly regenerative society by Killians strict definition of sustainability of being able to use all materials indefinitely is hunter gatherer society or primitive farming. Anything else is a compromise, but I’m totally ok with a compromise.
The thing is we HAVE to clearly define what problem we are trying to really solve and how severe it is. One of the problems is we are using materials so fast humanity could run out of some things, and could eventually be forced back to a simpler life on very long time scales. However if we strictly ration materials to mitigate this problem, this causes its own set of very significant problems, so we are stuck having to perform a balancing act that reduces problems for future generations, but that doesn’t excessively compromise our current technology based existence and create a society that is excessively regimented or drone like. Just existing, tending gardens.
I would define a regenerative society (the compromise sort that still uses non renewables) as one that wastes as little as possible and recycles, the “circular” economy, and I’m using the word waste very widely to also include extravagance.
But the population of the planet is getting too large for even the regenerative resources of the planet, so you have to get the size of the population down. Various studies suggest from 2-5 billion people is ideal. This also helps the non renewables problems. The point is there is no one simple strategy or philosophy that solves the big environmental problems.
Quite a decent article on the sustainable society:
Re 222 Piotr said WITHOUT including a shred of proof for these – are NOT arguments.
Every point made, even if made repeatedly, must be fully referenced in every post? Argumentative, at best. Get your geek on elsewhere.
Re 223 Piotr bleated you meant your tautology
There is no tautology. You could not (the definition of sustainability is absolutely accurate), thus did not, falsify the argument. Any other claim is a lie. Else, do so here:
No? Right. Learn the definitions of the words before using them.
“I think it’s better to define sustainable as” [ and then he proposes a … definition different than your “simple truth”.
No, he stated it was accurate. Then he demonstrated a Straw Man he knew was a lie, then he TRIED to offer his oft-repeated wish that sustainability wasn’t real and can be what he wishes it to be. And then you said stupid shit because you’re an ass with no interest in these issues beyond thinking you’re in a high school debate class.
>> b) questioned your application of it (your dismissing “good” (existing renewables))
To me this amounts to “dismissing renewables”
Who gives a shit?
you don’t convince people by showing them your contempt with your patronizing, tone
But you do, hypocrite? Damned fool…
And you don’t “win” discussions
You think that’s the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell.
by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments
What I say is proven.
Some of us might be interested to hear how you see achieving your goals of sustainable/regenerative future
Lie. My words have nothing to do with whether you choose to be informed. And you being a massive ass yourself, makes your claim ludicrous.
***************************************
Re #228 nigelj said
Piotr @223,
“but instead we get …that. What a waste.”
We have been getting “… that” and worse for the last three years and pointing it out to no avail . Sigh.
I worked with you intensively for six months when you first showed up here. I was exceptionally patient with you. Straw Men, misrepresentations, hypocrisy, gaslighting, outright lies, these have been the norm for you since your arrival. And here you add to it. You know your history. You know you have lied. You know you continue to.
It took me SIX MONTHS of your insults, lies, etc., before finally giving up. Yet, I’m the problem?
You are all fools choosing your egos over facts, information, logic, solutions, survival.
Killiansays
It doesn’t matter which part of the planet you pull resources out of, it’s always destructive.
Does it not make sense to no longer do that given the high quality of life we can have without doing so?
“Can’t be done!” is a child’s response.
“We must take the middle way!” is a fool’s response given the existential threat.
“We can’t accept anything you say because *you* say it” is just f***ing stupid.
The Peanut Gallery: Uh-uh! Mud hut extremist! Renewables hater! Recycling hater! Resources hater! Life hater!
Herbert Giradet: What is 120 times the size of London? The answer: the land or ecological footprint required to supply London’s needs.
Piotrsays
Re Al Bundy (230)
Let’s recapitulate:
1.>>>> Piotr (175) : So your derision is based on your inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia. [Then quoting AB (157):]
>>>>> Al Bundy (157): My opinion of you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve
>>>> Piotr (175): Sorry, I am only concerned about the opinions of people I respect. My respect for you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve.
2. >>> Al Bundy (204) “They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate.”
3.>> Piotr (220) Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
4.> AB: Well… Mirroring is mostly subconscious. Your conscious mind’s involvement is mostly to come up with an excuse. So, if your comeback makes sense and bites with humor, it could be a pure insult. If not (and it did not) then your words were likely mirroring.
Huh? How is it an answer to the question above? I DIDN’T ask you whether you liked my throwing your patronizing words back in your face or not – I did ask why did you bring up the possibility of flattery, when you KNEW it was not the case? (see the quotes above)
And you must be a great psychologist, if by reading my words:
“So your derision is based on your inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia”
you think to yourself – now, that Piotr fella must deep down subconsciously admire me and wants to be like me. ;;-)
Some poets like to overstate their case – how much uranium has been mined from oceanic crust, or in the lower 9.8km of the top 10 km of the continental crust? The proper number would be amount of uranium that is close enough to the surface and in high enough concentration to make it economically viable.
You forgot a few things:
1. This is not a “mining” operation; only natural processes are at work between rock and water. Weathering and hydrothermal processes exchange metal ions with water, from which they can be recovered by nearly passive means.
2. It’s over a period of half a BILLION years (roughly 180 times the current lifespan of genus Homo). In that time, 0.7 inches/year of ocean ridge spreading creates over 5500 miles of new seafloor. That’s wider than any ocean on the planet, and ALL of it is hydrothermally active where it originates. In short, we can keep this up far longer than any species can be expected to exist.
3. Rivers deliver 32,000 tons of uranium to the oceans every year. Consumption of 10,000 tons per year is only going to affect the rate of deposition into mineral forms like phosphate rock; there’s going to be plenty in the oceans regardless.
4. Fission of 1 ton of uranium produces roughly 1 TW-day of heat. 10,000 TW-days is roughly 820 quads, considerably more than total current annual human energy consumption. We can supply more than the world’s energy consumption from less than 1/3 of the uranium that rivers deliver to the oceans every year. And it’s cheap, too; if pulling uranium from seawater costs $250/kg, $250/GW-day costs just 0.3¢ per million BTU for fuel. Compared to natural gas at $2/mmBTU, that’s ridiculously cheap; EVERYBODY can have all they need.
* vulnerability to terrorist attacks or to providing material for dirty bomb to the terrorists
The only attempts thus far to make “dirty bombs” from radioisotope sources ended in failure with terrorists incapacitated and dying from exposure to the materials they attempted to steal. For that matter, if everyone has ample energy, what are the causes of conflict? Who would even WANT a dirty bomb, except zealots trying to assert control over people who want nothing to do with them? (Zealots like you, maybe?)
* vulnerability to earthquakes and other massive impacts
The 2011 Tohoku quake was one of the largest ever on earth. Every single plant survived the quake itself. So far as asteroids are concerned, nuclear technology is perfect for intercepting and deflecting or destroying dangerous bodies.
* vulnerability to social collapse
Social collapse is very unlikely if there is no underlying crisis such as a shortage of energy… unless we allow humanity to degenerate into stupidity.
“No, he stated it was accurate. Then he demonstrated a Straw Man he knew was a lie, then he TRIED to offer his oft-repeated wish that sustainability wasn’t real and can be what he wishes it to be. And then you said stupid shit because you’re an ass with no interest in these issues beyond thinking you’re in a high school debate class.”
No. What you have written is utter crap. I argued that we can define sustainable as lasting as long as possible, or a long time. In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least) provided we recycle the components, avoid extravagant use, and get the size of human population down. How is that wrong?
—————————-
“It took me SIX MONTHS of your insults, lies, etc., before finally giving up. Yet, I’m the problem?”
I have never lied, and I’ve done my best to avoid name calling. Nobody else is accusing me of name calling, personal insults, or telling lies. The consensus seems to be that YOU are the problem around here as far as style and tone goes and some of your ideas as well.
nigeljsays
Killian @243 says “It doesn’t matter which part of the planet you pull resources out of, it’s always destructive.”
Yes, but often the level of destruction is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Open cast mine sites can be reinstated with new planting and many are already. Remember a single storm can cause a lot of environmental damage. Things are in a constant state of flux. Loss of natural habitat for farming is the larger scale problem and that relates to population demands.
“Does it not make sense to no longer do that given the high quality of life we can have without doing so?”
I do not accept we can have a high quality of life without mining at least some new materials. Its also possible to extract many minerals from sea water which can obviously be done in ways with insignificant impacts. Is that acceptable to you?
“Can’t be done!” is a child’s response.”
Strawman. All I’ve said is people are very unlikely going to accept a low tech society so Im not going to waste my energy promoting one. They might give up some peripheral things like owning two cars, or multiple televisions and I encourage that, but IMHO people are unlikely to go beyond that.
“We must take the middle way!” is a fool’s response given the existential threat.”
And yet your own rhetoric allows for a technology bridge, so is a middle way compromise of a sort. And mineral resource scarcity is plainly unlikely to make the human race extinct, given indigenous tribes live without modern technology.
The real problem is biodiversity loss due to expanding farm land, and the less we use mineral resources, the more risk there is of over using things like timber.
The pragmatic solution to the mining dilemma and industrialisation is also to reduce waste.
“We can’t accept anything you say because *you* say it” is just f***ing stupid.”
Not true. I look at each issue on its merits, and I also like you have my doubts about sea floor mining. However ways might be found to mitigate the problems, while you just say “don’t do it”.
———————————–
Killian @244
“Herbert Giradet: What is 120 times the size of London? The answer: the land or ecological footprint required to supply London’s needs.”
Obviously, but ring fencing London with a giant farm like that would not create a walkable community in respect of tending to farms. You would still need quite a big transport infrastructure. And you have just said “cities are non sustainable” so you are propping up something that is not sustainable. To truly meet your own objectives would require mostly much smaller communities spread out in the landscape wouldn’t it?
Or is it that you mean cities are not sustainable in their current form? If so you are looking at a massive rebuilding exercise.
Simple question. Is a high rise tower block, for example 10 floors, sustainable enough for you?
Killian @193
“186 nigelj he just keeps forgetting to mention this so everyone misinterprets him over and over”
“No, I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day…..Given you clearly DO have the context in your head, it’s petty as fuck to claim the obvious must be repeated ad nauseum. Worse, it’s a blatant excuse to avoid the issues.”
I have the context in MY head because I’ve read plenty of your comments. What about those that haven’t read all your comments? What about Piotr, who appears to be new to this website? What about people who forget things? Its astoninishing that you cannot grasp this. You are either careless, or incredibly self absorbed.
Its so easy to fix the problem. Be clear about the issue. If you are claiming renewables are not sustainable explain also that you are not suggesting they can never be used, just that you think we should be prudent in their use, or whatever point you want to make….Are you happy that people constantly misinterpret you?
Nigel: If you want to act like an utter prick and hoard gazillions
AB: Yeah. Have you noticed how GOPpers always crow about how everyone MUST be a total asshat or everything falls apart? “Why on Earth would I give a meal to a starving person?? I earn NOTHING by doing so. In fact I LOSE!”
Yo Zebra, if I see you choking I should just enjoy the show? WHY should I expend MY time and effort saving your life?
“Greed is good” my ass. “Become a more complete prick” is a counterproductive goal. Why are all GOPpers laser focused on becoming perfectly selfish slime? “Efficiency”? Makes me think of German trains around 1940. Ya really want to live in an “efficient” society?
Ponder…
Organization A has 10,000 workers and 10 owners. They make a million widgets using $1 million in raw materials and sell them for $11. Workers get $9 million and owners get $1 million.
Organization B, same except grossed $8 million with workers getting $1 million and owners $6 million.
Which organization made more money? I say “A”. Shoving the team’s earnings into a couple pockets does not raise the take, just the unfairness.
Piotr,
They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate. Now, I said that my opinion of you went down because you’re bulldogging a stupid position. And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment).
OK. Valid or not, my diss makes sense. Now your toss back. Why has your respect for me declined?
Without a valid answer your position is preschool.
And I still have a high opinion of you. Nobody’s perfect.
Of course any city can feed itself with a few 500 story nuclear powered farms. Lights make a grand dump load.
But it’s kinda insane. There is no reason for a city to get anywhere near all of its calories from internal sources, especially if moo and booze are included. Cows are big, heavy, and designed to eat, and so poop, as much as possible. Housing them off the ground floor isn’t happening and read about turn of the 20th century cities and horse manure for a whiff of the sewage problem.
nigelj finally gets real @185:
I don’t have time to dig through long threads just to find an ill-defined link someone put there. Fortunately, I did find a reference at Michele Kearney’s blog and read it a couple days ago. (I dont have time to keep up with everything here in real time either.) And I have few quibbles with these points from the book (which I numbered):
I have no direct knowledge and thus no opinion on 6, 8, 9 and 10, but I agree with all the rest. And given Shellenberger’s willingness to put evidence before dogma, I’m sure that the heatwave-induced dieoffs of Australian wildlife will change his tune on the mass extinction question as well. It hasn’t made it into the scientific literature, so not on his radar… yet. But it will be.
I have the context in MY head because I’ve read plenty of your comments
Only you and Al are babies around here. Everyone else has been around for years. They know my thoughts.
And this is the book we used as areference to show permaculture in schools was not only legit, but NORMAL in Australia.
https://www.amazon.com/Outdoor-Classrooms-Handbook-School-Gardens/dp/1856231135
I have never been more disgusted with you.
Re 197 Kevin McKinney shit the bed:
You’re lying. The terms needed no clarification…
Ah, so now you know my mind so well that you can tell me whether I need clarification or not.
You mind has nothing to do with it. The questiin was clear, it was specific, with YEARS of context and interactions behind it, as well as a clear statement ONLY answers to that question would be engaged.
You are afraid of the implications, Kevin, doing anything you canto avoid acknowledging everything I have warned of since 2007 is happening.
Stop being a petulant, deflecting child; focus on the goddamned problem.
But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day,
I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.
From The Moderators
“Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.”
Engineer-Poet @206
Well if you cant be bothered reading a few comments that take about one minute to scan, and the link I gave you why the hell did you ask for references? And you have cherry picked Shellenburgers quotes just related to mitigation. My comment related primarily to the SCIENCE.
At least read my comment on the UV thread, and the new article posted on Shellenburgers book on this website “Shellenberger’s op-ad.
I don’t disagree with him about nuclear power, but the rest of his commentary is mostly crap. For example ” 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%” So what? Its still less than 0.2% of the worlds total land area from calcs I have seen. His spin grates on my nerves. People should make honest answers that state the full facts or shut up.
Killian @210
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.”
Its not a straw man fallacy. You dont know what a straw man is. What I said is a fundamental truism that needs saying. Its then a question of how far we should go to try to conserve non renewable resources.
I even quite like your posted idea of looking at things humans do and avoid using non renewable resources if we can use renewables instead, like timber. At least this appears to be what you are saying.
But its just not a simple issue. Doing things using renewable resources has to make sense. If we tried to make wind towers, cars and aircraft out of timber right now, we would risk running out of timber and enough land to grow timber on, and it is not as effective as using things like steel, and we are conserving incredibly abundant materials like iron and aluminium which doesn’t make a lot of sense. I do see sense in being more prudent with the use of rarer materials like cobalt.
So yes we should use scarce non renewable materials more frugally, that is virtually commonsense, but even if we do we will eventually run out and be forced back to hunter gatherer culture ( I think its unlikely but possible). You should be happy with that so I dont understand what your problem is. Relax.
Your implied suggestion at 208 that I rubbished permaculture farming IS a strawman. I simply stated a fact that there’s no hard evidence it is more productive than conventional farming.
And yes I’m repeating myself and will go on doing so until I get sensible answers and comments from people.
Killian @209, all Kevin did was ask you to clarify what you meant exactly by the term idefinitely in “Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources.” Its a completely fair question, and I almost asked myself. Because you have made so many contradictory statements in the past, suggesting sustainability has to mean literally forever, then when AB challenged you on this, you rubbished him and when I said renewables could be sustainable just for a long time if we recycled them, you did not dispute that. So I can totally understand why Kevin asked for a clarification.
Get over yourself. Just damn well clarify things and stop second guessing why people ask for clarification. You waste pages in silly disputes like this.
By all means, let’s define “sustainable”.
If uranium is 2 ppm by mass of Earth’s crust, and the average crustal density is 3.5, then the top 10 km contains about 36 trillion tons of uranium. All of this uranium is decaying away by itself and the biosphere has no use for it or its decay products, so human consumption doesn’t take from anything else. Continental uranium is carried to the oceans by weathering and oceanic crust uranium is exchanged with seawater by hydrothermal processes, so essentially all of that uranium is available for human use on geological time scales.
Fission of a mere 10,000 tons of uranium per year would supply several times current total human energy consumption. That is less than the rate of decay of U-238. Earth has perhaps 500 million years before increase of the solar constant drives it into a wet greenhouse followed by Venusian conditions, so at 10,000 tpy we’d only consume about 5 trillion of the 36 trillion tons available.
This is quite manageable, and it is also sustainable for the remaining lifespan of Earth’s biosphere.
Beerling et al outline GtonCO2/yr capture by spreading basalt dust on cropland:
doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9
Hansen is a co author.
sidd
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/spreading-rock-dust-on-fields-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air?CMP=share_btn_tw
Stumbled across this: “Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air. It may be best near-term way to remove CO2, say scientists, but cutting fossil fuel use remains critical…..” Seems similar to some things EP has posted.
E-P 206: 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
BPL: Nonsense. Do the math. I did.
Killian: (quoting someone) But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day,
Killian: I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.
AB: I think you are too much of a stupid ass to A: know how to create electricity in significant amounts sustainably,
And B: to EVER actually say ANYTHING except to insult others.
So actually CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING, asshole.
Electricity. Is it allowed in Killian’s Utopia? If so, describe the biggest most intense use of electricity in Killian’s Stupidistan.
Al Bundy: “They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate.”
Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
>Now, I said that my opinion of you went down because you’re bulldogging a stupid position.
Whether it is stupid – it is for everybody to decide for themselves
– see the attachment at the end.
>And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment).
By “And you know it” you imply that you have proven me wrong and that I knowing it
insist on my “stupid position”? Neither is true – you didn’t disprove my arguments in (175), instead you are disproving arguments I …didn’t make:
– I DIDN’T “bring up catalyst”,
– I DIDN’T discuss your “hidden pass” analogy, since my argument does not require hidden passes.
So your claim: “And you know it because you brought up catalysts (after my “hidden pass around the hill” comment)” tells something, but not about me, but about you.
> OK. Valid or not, my diss makes sense.
Huh? If your diss were not valid – it would still “make sense”???
>Now your toss back
to show that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
> Why has your respect for me declined? Without a valid answer your position is preschool.
Huh? Have you read my post? My throwing your own words at then end was just the CONCLUSION – the rest of my post was that “valid answer” WHY my opinion of you declined. Since you obviously missed it (“Without a valid answer your position is preschool”) – here it is again:
===== my post (175) =====
Al Bundy (157) “Your “stability” argument is specious. EP was speaking of fuels, not rocks.
Piotr (175): The discussion is about “energy storage” – ergo: fuel AND products of their combustion. Nobody talked about “rocks”. But please do lecture others about speciousness of _their_ arguments. […]
AB>Just as laughable is to say that the only stable fuels (remember, you dissed EP’s FUEL comment) are carbon dioxide, water, and other such stable stuff.
P: Since the discussion is about energy storage using CH4, we don’t discuss [“fuels” or “rocks”], but the thermodynamics of the reaction: CH4 +2O2 CO2 + 2H2O.
Definition: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its lowest energy state” => the right side (CO2+2H2O) has more than 800kJ/mol LESS energy than the left side => CO2 side is MUCH MORE thermodynamically stable than the CH4 side.
Since I don’t know of any practical reaction that would allow extraction of energy from the right side – why would I call CO2 …“FUEL” ????
So your derision is based on your … inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia.
AB > My opinion of you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve
Sorry, I am only concerned about the opinions of people I respect. My respect for you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve.
=============================
You current post does not help on the respect score either…
Schellenburger said “100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%”
This is wrong of course.Here are some interesting and credible calculations and graphics on how much land renewable electricity generation would really need, less than 0.5% of the worlds land surface area.
https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/
When I first read this, I read it as BY 50% by mistake, hence I said “so what, it still only requires using about 0.2% of the worlds land area”.
Killian (138) – nonresponsive
“Please do not misinform/lie” or “ LOL… That’s complete (non-pejorative) ignorance”
WITHOUT including a shred of proof for these – are NOT arguments.
And your attempts at sarcasm… whau:
“This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment” [capitalization of “ASS” – as in Killian’s original]
What were you thinking? ‘- With that lame pun I will certainly come across as witty’???
Killian (139): Piotr (133): we … didn’t attempt to falsify your definition, but merely a) questioned its cognitive value” (Nigel showing it be a useless tautology: ”No modern technology is sustainable by this definition?
K: No, you didn’t. That’s bullshit hyperbole.
Huh? Which is this “bullshit hyperbole”? That tautologies have little cognitive value and therefore are useless?
K: [Nigel], he correctly stated a simple truth that is apparently beyond you.
– If by this “simple truth” you meant your tautology – then apparently it wasn’t beyond me – see Killian: “To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate.” I was one of these “gentlemen”.
– Or if you meant that Nigel considered your tautology insightful or useful – then, well, let’s read what he wrote next:
“Only stone age and timber based technologies are truly sustainable by this definition. We cant live like this right now even if we wanted, because there are too many people to rely just on timber for a fuel and building source.” And continues: “I think it’s better to define sustainable as” [ and then he proposes a … definition different than your “simple truth”.]
>> b) questioned your application of it (your dismissing “good” (existing renewables))
Killian: Are you just stupid or are you a liar. I have never, literally, dismissed “renewables.
P: Your past is irrelevant here – your argument in any given thread has to be self-contained and stand on its own, without the need to study author’s posting history. In this thread – you joined the discussion about renewables to …. talk how no modern technologies meet your criteria of sustainability. To me this amounts to “dismissing renewables” since they don’t meet your definition, but if I was wrong then you would not have a problem with offering a more likely (Occam’s razor!) explanation of your posts in this thread. And no – “Are you just stupid or are you a liar” does not count as this more likely explanation.
Most people post to convince others to their point of view, or to get an ego kick by “winning” a discussion. You are achieving neither: you don’t convince people by showing them your contempt with your patronizing, tone:
– “To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate. That concludes Phase I.”
– “you are both making a really huge error in your accounting. It’s really obvious. Think…”
“-This is the last dip into the rabbit hole of idiocy: nigelj and Kevin:[…]
– “You’re becoming a good little regenerative systems denialist.”
– “I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day.”
And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments:
– “Are you just stupid or are you a liar”,
– “Please do not misinform/lie”,
– “That’s bullshit hyperbole” ,
– “This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment”
(some examples from only 2 short posts)
Some of us might be interested to hear how you see achieving your goals of sustainable/regenerative future, but instead we get …that. What a waste.
E. Poet (215) let’s define “sustainable”. If uranium is 2 ppm by mass of Earth’s crust, and the average crustal density is 3.5, then the top 10 km contains about 36 trillion tons of uranium.
Some poets like to overstate their case – how much uranium has been mined from oceanic crust, or in the lower 9.8km of the top 10 km of the continental crust? The proper number would be amount of uranium that is close enough to the surface and in high enough concentration to make it economically viable. Maybe a lot – but for sure many ORDERS of magnitude less than “about 36 trillion tons”
More important, being “sustainable” is not limited to “is there enough of it to be mined” – there have to be the consideration – are the effects of using of the technology ALSO “sustainable”:
– Is mining ore, processing it, using in power plants, long-term disposal, and the transport between all these stages sustainable and safe to people
– Is it economically sustainable – I doubt the promise by Lewis Straus, not an amateur but the chairman of the US Atomic Energy commission at the time, that the nuclear power will be too cheap to meter, will come to fruition
– Other the other effects sustainable, particularly in built in less stable parts of the world:
* nuclear proliferation – N. Korea or Iran did not start with: let me build the bomb, but we want to use atom for peaceful applications
* vulnerability to terrorist attacks or to providing material for dirty bomb to the terrorists
* potential targets in war – you don’t need to have nuclear weapon to inflict nuclear damage
* vulnerability to earthquakes and other massive impacts (an asteroid hitting near one of the many power plants we would need)
* vulnerability to social collapse – if there is not enough time to safely shut it down and safely remove and hide the nuclear material
-etc.
nigelj: all Kevin did was ask you to clarify what you meant exactly by the term idefinitely in “Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources.” Its a completely fair question
Do you need stop, go, left, right defined, too? It wasn’t a fair question, it wasn’t a needed question. It was intentional bullshit to avoid the question. By definition, an indefinite period of time CANNOT BE DEFINED, else it’s a definite time period.
This is a beyond stupid line of argument by both of you.
nigelj: Killian @210
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“I think you are genetically unable to post without engaging a Straw Man fallacy.”
Its not a straw man fallacy.
It absolutely is: Who has suggested zero electricity? You’re arguing against a condition nobody has suggested. You are trying to paint persons like me as absurd by lying about what is being argued.
Peanut Gallery, shut up, stop acting like brain-dead little twits, take the situation seriously. Answer the question:
Phase II
We previously established:
Define “regenerative”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources while enhancing and improving ecosystem functioning and productivity (ecosystem services.)
nigelj: No modern technology is sustainable by this definition.
Adam Lea: A bicycle made from wood comes very close.
The above having gone unchallenged, and being accurate, what are the implications for solving climate, resource and ecological problems? As well as sociopolitical and economic…
That is, if almost everything “developed” and/or industrialized nations do is planet-killing, what direction do we go in to solve these problems?
Looked at from the opposite side, what *does* a regenerative society look like?
(I.e., how do you create a regenerative society if you have no idea what one *is?*)
Piotr @223,
“but instead we get …that. What a waste.”
We have been getting “… that” and worse for the last three years and pointing it out to no avail . Sigh.
But I will give you Killians ideas because I suspect you wont get anything clear cut out of him and it might stop screeds of conflicted discussions. He thinks renewables are not sustainable because we will run out of metals and so on, which is a valid argument given enough time, and mining can damage the environment, and that we should completely give up on capitalism.
BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare. The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera . Its the simple living low tech. philosophy, which doesn’t need definition because itreally defines itself.
For myself I cant see a good enough reason to go that far, but I think theres a fairly compelling and multifacetted case that we should reduce waste, recycle, and reduce population growth and look at changing how we farm to a more soil friendly model, and definitely mitigate the climate problem.
EP: And given Shellenberger’s willingness to put evidence before dogma, I’m sure that the heatwave-induced dieoffs of Australian wildlife will change his tune on the mass extinction question as well.
AB: Ooo, a test! Good job, EP. I suggest we withhold final judgement for about 90 days. Is EP’s hypothesis correct?
Piotr: Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
AB: Well…
Mirroring is mostly subconscious. Your conscious mind’s involvement is mostly to come up with an excuse.
So, if your comeback makes sense and bites with humor, it could be a pure insult. If not (and it did not) then your words were likely mirroring.
Piotr: I DIDN’T “bring up catalyst”,
AB: I brought up catalysts with ‘finding a path around the hill’. You carried it on by chiding EP for using the direct conversion’s losses cuz there could be another way. Yep, could be. Find it and post. But seriously, wyf are we talking about if not catalysts?
So, since you’re going to stick with, for example, my example, not yours, feel free to adjust: ‘nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, I think this conversation just detonated. Take care.
I’ve been working on pistons and connecting rods. They’re responsible for maybe 60% of an engine’s friction. I believe my design will get rid of most of the friction. Care to do me a favor and look at my concept, EP?
Nigel and EP on artificial weathering via spreading rock,
Yes. My lateral low berm/dike idea for rivers uses the same chemistry by filling the linear dry wells on the upstream sides of the berms with appropriate gravel. Stores CO2, essentially eliminates damaging floods, and recharges aquifers.
Piotr,
Quite observant about our resident, uh, aloof insulter. After 20 years (and he thinks that I’m still a newbie) I still have no clue whether electricity is involved in his vision. Everyone gives guesses about wtf is hidden behind the slashing deluge of insults, but that just brings more sleet:
‘I’ve been calling you names for decades and you STILL don’t know the particulars of my genius vision?!? Followed by #@@!#*!!!.
That’s interaction with Killian. 1% content and 99% insult… If you’re lucky. Of course folks don’t remember (or take in (like the ‘invisible’ guy in a gorilla suit that waves at you while you’re too busy counting basketballs to notice)).
And around and round we go. Where it stops depends on who dies first.
Localizing is not radical, it’s not new. It’s back to t future.
Don’t listen to dullard ideologues whose only contribution to the conversation is, “Can’t be done!”
https://twitter.com/via_campesina/status/1280397122739691523?s=20
Lies never end here:
BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.
You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.
The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .
And that’s just another flat out lie.
Special K: Lies never end here:
…N: BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.
Special K: You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.
…N: The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .
And that’s just another flat out lie.
AB: So it seems even your poster boy for ‘knows wtf Special K is talking about’ doesn’t have a clue. And it’s wayyyyy obvious that he’s tried his best.
Your explanation, that 100% of the folks you choose to hang all got together and decided to…
A conspiracy! Now I’m peeved that nobody invited me.
Some answers Special K:
After conversion is complete..
How is glass made? What additives are used? Is the glass 21st century clear, triple-glazed with argon or vacuum? Do windows slide like butter on a griddle?
Buildings. Sheetrock finish? Paint? Insulation?
Iron after all mines and salvage runs out? Higher tech alloys? You don’t melt scrap and get forged supersteel.
Electricity. Again, what is the most intensive use of juice before all mines run out? after all scrap runs out?
Where do you see us, your loyal subjects, in 5 years if we crown you? 10? 20? How do we live? Keep our houses? Vehicles?
Yeah, morphed to the transition…
You have the stage at least until the first insult. After that Sesame Street K might start tossing letters again
Killian @235
“BUT he accepts we can build some renewables sparingly, just enough for essential services like healthcare.”
“You leave out embedded energy, bridge tech, increasing recycling infrastructure.”
It should be obvious I was quoting just one example given how I worded things.
“The rest of us are expected to get by mostly cooking on wood stoves, and huddling under blankets in winter etcetera .”
“And that’s just another flat out lie.”
No it isnt. When I challenged you about last year how we would attain the very high levels of energy reduction you have posted (80 – 90%) you said “rug up” and cook using wood stoves. Your trouble is your memory is either awful or selective.
And if you think these are lies, please at least spell out how you would expect people to stay warm and cook, and in specific detail please, with reference to actual appliances and methods. And don’t give us answers like “whatevers appropriate” or it as to be “designed by location” or using “permaclture design”. You must have some overall idea, and cannot post big claims about how much energy you think we should or can reduce things by, without a workable, quantified and prescriptive plan.
Killian @226
“But it would be an absurdity not to use any electricity, just because we will inevitably run out of some of the core non renewable materials one day”
“It absolutely is (a straw man fallacy): Who has suggested zero electricity? You’re arguing against a condition nobody has suggested. You are trying to paint persons like me as absurd by lying about what is being argued.”
I didn’t say anyone had suggested we use zero electricity, and I’m not trying to ridicule you. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would have said It would be an absurdity not to use electricity as Killian has suggested / or as has been suggested on this thread. I deliberately didn’t do that and as far as Im aware you havent suggested it. Maybe I could have worded it better, but its not a straw man or was not intended as such.
I’m making the point IF we use your definition of sustainability meaning ‘indefinitely’ (effectively forever) then we are effectively saying the use of non renewable resources are not 100% sustainable, and they aren’t sustainable by that definition. People will NATURALLY react that by thinking you are suggesting we not use such non renewable resources (eg metals and fossil fuels for petrochemical use), because we are also promoting that people act sustainably. I have told you this before. Why do I have to repeat it again?
So we have to be very clear sustainability indefinitely doesn’t mean we cant use non renewable resources, and said whenever the issue comes up. And it is virtually self evidence that we can use non renewable resources, because it would be an obvious, self evident absurdity not to use them. Ie we need no further proof or debate unless its for the sake of having silly discussions for fun.
I’m afraid Piotr is right you have created a bit of a tautology. The only way out is to be very clear that we can still use those resources, and not leave people hanging.
The other possible definition of sustainability is just that we have to make things last a long time (which could need further definition) or as long as possible. Then we don’t get into this problem of people jumping to conclusions that you mean non renewables cannot be used. I prefer this definition, although I accept its not perfect. Sometimes perfect is unattainable.
However it probably doesn’t matter too much because whatever definition is used it always comes down to how prudent we should be in using non renewable resources, ie how many and how fast. I have explained at 228 how far I think we should go to slow down the rate we use non renewable resources. It seems we absolutely should do those things, yet absurd to me to go beyond that. There will be a sweet spot that optimises outcomes.
And obviously we are using some renewable resources too fast for example the fisheries and natural forests like the Amazon. And there we get into another challenge because if we slow down the use of non renewables it creates pressure to use renewables too fast.
Killian @234 says “Don’t listen to dullard ideologues whose only contribution to the conversation is, “Can’t be done!”
This is the opening paragraph of Killians posted source material: “Read about this inspiring journey that Nicaragua took, where 90% of the food consumed in Nicaragua is produced within the national borders, 80%of it by peasants. “A nation that cannot feed itself is not free”
And is this not a straw man of your own? Who has said it cant be done? Not me. Not anyone else as far as I can see.
I tend to think countries should try to be self sufficient in food, but I support free trade in most other things. However some small countries are so short of land and have so many people they probably cant be self sufficient in food and others have to import food for other reasons as in the list below:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-countries-importing-the-most-food-in-the-world.html#:~:text=The%20United%20States%2C%20being%20one,Netherlands%20at%20%2464.38%20billion%20USD%2C
Killian @227 says:
“We previously established:Define “regenerative”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources while enhancing and improving ecosystem functioning and productivity (ecosystem services.)…..nigelj: No modern technology is sustainable by this definition……Adam Lea: A bicycle made from wood comes very close……”
“The above having gone unchallenged, and being accurate, what are the implications for solving climate, resource and ecological problems? As well as sociopolitical and economic… That is, if almost everything “developed” and/or industrialized nations do is planet-killing, what direction do we go in to solve these problems?”
I don’t accept everything said above by Killian, but for the sake of ‘simplicity’ its clear hes right to the extent that industrialisation is harsh on the planet. And imho therefore ultimately humanity as well. So we need to reduce the planet killing components of industrialisation. So we stop, or dramatically reduce dumping toxic waste (and climate changing waste) into the land, oceans and atmosphere, or at least render it contained in the case of nuclear waste. We make sure after we have closed down mines we reinstate the land. We stop gobbling up natural habitats for farm land. There are other things but these are a couple of the main problems.
We know how to do virtually all this from a technical perspective and it wont kill the ‘economy’. The problem is a lack of motivation amongst other things.
Another solution is just to stop industrialisation itself, or massively cut it back, but this will meet with exactly the same lack of motivation, pretty self evidently more so than just reducing dumping waste. And it is a crude solution like using a brick to hammer in a nail. That said, there are a range of benefits to be gained by at least slowing industrialisation down a bit.
“Looked at from the opposite side, what *does* a regenerative society look like?” “(I.e., how do you create a regenerative society if you have no idea what one *is?*)”
The only truly regenerative society by Killians strict definition of sustainability of being able to use all materials indefinitely is hunter gatherer society or primitive farming. Anything else is a compromise, but I’m totally ok with a compromise.
The thing is we HAVE to clearly define what problem we are trying to really solve and how severe it is. One of the problems is we are using materials so fast humanity could run out of some things, and could eventually be forced back to a simpler life on very long time scales. However if we strictly ration materials to mitigate this problem, this causes its own set of very significant problems, so we are stuck having to perform a balancing act that reduces problems for future generations, but that doesn’t excessively compromise our current technology based existence and create a society that is excessively regimented or drone like. Just existing, tending gardens.
I would define a regenerative society (the compromise sort that still uses non renewables) as one that wastes as little as possible and recycles, the “circular” economy, and I’m using the word waste very widely to also include extravagance.
But the population of the planet is getting too large for even the regenerative resources of the planet, so you have to get the size of the population down. Various studies suggest from 2-5 billion people is ideal. This also helps the non renewables problems. The point is there is no one simple strategy or philosophy that solves the big environmental problems.
Quite a decent article on the sustainable society:
https://econation.co.nz/sustainable-economy/
Re 222 Piotr said WITHOUT including a shred of proof for these – are NOT arguments.
Every point made, even if made repeatedly, must be fully referenced in every post? Argumentative, at best. Get your geek on elsewhere.
Re 223 Piotr bleated you meant your tautology
There is no tautology. You could not (the definition of sustainability is absolutely accurate), thus did not, falsify the argument. Any other claim is a lie. Else, do so here:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
No? Right. Learn the definitions of the words before using them.
“I think it’s better to define sustainable as” [ and then he proposes a … definition different than your “simple truth”.
No, he stated it was accurate. Then he demonstrated a Straw Man he knew was a lie, then he TRIED to offer his oft-repeated wish that sustainability wasn’t real and can be what he wishes it to be. And then you said stupid shit because you’re an ass with no interest in these issues beyond thinking you’re in a high school debate class.
>> b) questioned your application of it (your dismissing “good” (existing renewables))
To me this amounts to “dismissing renewables”
Who gives a shit?
you don’t convince people by showing them your contempt with your patronizing, tone
But you do, hypocrite? Damned fool…
And you don’t “win” discussions
You think that’s the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell.
by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments
What I say is proven.
Some of us might be interested to hear how you see achieving your goals of sustainable/regenerative future
Lie. My words have nothing to do with whether you choose to be informed. And you being a massive ass yourself, makes your claim ludicrous.
***************************************
Re #228 nigelj said
Piotr @223,
“but instead we get …that. What a waste.”
We have been getting “… that” and worse for the last three years and pointing it out to no avail . Sigh.
I worked with you intensively for six months when you first showed up here. I was exceptionally patient with you. Straw Men, misrepresentations, hypocrisy, gaslighting, outright lies, these have been the norm for you since your arrival. And here you add to it. You know your history. You know you have lied. You know you continue to.
It took me SIX MONTHS of your insults, lies, etc., before finally giving up. Yet, I’m the problem?
You are all fools choosing your egos over facts, information, logic, solutions, survival.
It doesn’t matter which part of the planet you pull resources out of, it’s always destructive.
Does it not make sense to no longer do that given the high quality of life we can have without doing so?
“Can’t be done!” is a child’s response.
“We must take the middle way!” is a fool’s response given the existential threat.
“We can’t accept anything you say because *you* say it” is just f***ing stupid.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-sea-floor-mining-basically-130000958.html
Me: Cities are unsustainable.
The Peanut Gallery: Uh-uh! Mud hut extremist! Renewables hater! Recycling hater! Resources hater! Life hater!
Herbert Giradet: What is 120 times the size of London? The answer: the land or ecological footprint required to supply London’s needs.
Re Al Bundy (230)
Let’s recapitulate:
1.>>>> Piotr (175) : So your derision is based on your inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia. [Then quoting AB (157):]
>>>>> Al Bundy (157): My opinion of you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve
>>>> Piotr (175): Sorry, I am only concerned about the opinions of people I respect. My respect for you declined this week. Hopefully temporarily. Hopefully something’s going on in your life that will soon resolve.
2. >>> Al Bundy (204) “They say imitation is the sincerest flattery. That said, sometimes throwing someone’s words back can be witty and appropriate.”
3.>> Piotr (220) Since I quoted your patronizing words just before throwing them back at you, why are you bringing the flattery, as it were a possibility here?
4.> AB: Well… Mirroring is mostly subconscious. Your conscious mind’s involvement is mostly to come up with an excuse. So, if your comeback makes sense and bites with humor, it could be a pure insult. If not (and it did not) then your words were likely mirroring.
Huh? How is it an answer to the question above? I DIDN’T ask you whether you liked my throwing your patronizing words back in your face or not – I did ask why did you bring up the possibility of flattery, when you KNEW it was not the case? (see the quotes above)
And you must be a great psychologist, if by reading my words:
“So your derision is based on your inability to understand a simple argument and a simple definition from Wikipedia”
you think to yourself – now, that Piotr fella must deep down subconsciously admire me and wants to be like me. ;;-)
Piotr
The innumerate troll wrote @224:
You forgot a few things:
1. This is not a “mining” operation; only natural processes are at work between rock and water. Weathering and hydrothermal processes exchange metal ions with water, from which they can be recovered by nearly passive means.
2. It’s over a period of half a BILLION years (roughly 180 times the current lifespan of genus Homo). In that time, 0.7 inches/year of ocean ridge spreading creates over 5500 miles of new seafloor. That’s wider than any ocean on the planet, and ALL of it is hydrothermally active where it originates. In short, we can keep this up far longer than any species can be expected to exist.
3. Rivers deliver 32,000 tons of uranium to the oceans every year. Consumption of 10,000 tons per year is only going to affect the rate of deposition into mineral forms like phosphate rock; there’s going to be plenty in the oceans regardless.
4. Fission of 1 ton of uranium produces roughly 1 TW-day of heat. 10,000 TW-days is roughly 820 quads, considerably more than total current annual human energy consumption. We can supply more than the world’s energy consumption from less than 1/3 of the uranium that rivers deliver to the oceans every year. And it’s cheap, too; if pulling uranium from seawater costs $250/kg, $250/GW-day costs just 0.3¢ per million BTU for fuel. Compared to natural gas at $2/mmBTU, that’s ridiculously cheap; EVERYBODY can have all they need.
The only attempts thus far to make “dirty bombs” from radioisotope sources ended in failure with terrorists incapacitated and dying from exposure to the materials they attempted to steal. For that matter, if everyone has ample energy, what are the causes of conflict? Who would even WANT a dirty bomb, except zealots trying to assert control over people who want nothing to do with them? (Zealots like you, maybe?)
The 2011 Tohoku quake was one of the largest ever on earth. Every single plant survived the quake itself. So far as asteroids are concerned, nuclear technology is perfect for intercepting and deflecting or destroying dangerous bodies.
Social collapse is very unlikely if there is no underlying crisis such as a shortage of energy… unless we allow humanity to degenerate into stupidity.
Al Bundy tries to pull me in @231:
Nope. Busy.
More good news:
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-cobalt-free-lithium-ion-battery-sacrificing.html
Killian @242
“No, he stated it was accurate. Then he demonstrated a Straw Man he knew was a lie, then he TRIED to offer his oft-repeated wish that sustainability wasn’t real and can be what he wishes it to be. And then you said stupid shit because you’re an ass with no interest in these issues beyond thinking you’re in a high school debate class.”
No. What you have written is utter crap. I argued that we can define sustainable as lasting as long as possible, or a long time. In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least) provided we recycle the components, avoid extravagant use, and get the size of human population down. How is that wrong?
—————————-
“It took me SIX MONTHS of your insults, lies, etc., before finally giving up. Yet, I’m the problem?”
I have never lied, and I’ve done my best to avoid name calling. Nobody else is accusing me of name calling, personal insults, or telling lies. The consensus seems to be that YOU are the problem around here as far as style and tone goes and some of your ideas as well.
Killian @243 says “It doesn’t matter which part of the planet you pull resources out of, it’s always destructive.”
Yes, but often the level of destruction is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Open cast mine sites can be reinstated with new planting and many are already. Remember a single storm can cause a lot of environmental damage. Things are in a constant state of flux. Loss of natural habitat for farming is the larger scale problem and that relates to population demands.
“Does it not make sense to no longer do that given the high quality of life we can have without doing so?”
I do not accept we can have a high quality of life without mining at least some new materials. Its also possible to extract many minerals from sea water which can obviously be done in ways with insignificant impacts. Is that acceptable to you?
“Can’t be done!” is a child’s response.”
Strawman. All I’ve said is people are very unlikely going to accept a low tech society so Im not going to waste my energy promoting one. They might give up some peripheral things like owning two cars, or multiple televisions and I encourage that, but IMHO people are unlikely to go beyond that.
“We must take the middle way!” is a fool’s response given the existential threat.”
And yet your own rhetoric allows for a technology bridge, so is a middle way compromise of a sort. And mineral resource scarcity is plainly unlikely to make the human race extinct, given indigenous tribes live without modern technology.
The real problem is biodiversity loss due to expanding farm land, and the less we use mineral resources, the more risk there is of over using things like timber.
The pragmatic solution to the mining dilemma and industrialisation is also to reduce waste.
“We can’t accept anything you say because *you* say it” is just f***ing stupid.”
Not true. I look at each issue on its merits, and I also like you have my doubts about sea floor mining. However ways might be found to mitigate the problems, while you just say “don’t do it”.
———————————–
Killian @244
“Herbert Giradet: What is 120 times the size of London? The answer: the land or ecological footprint required to supply London’s needs.”
Obviously, but ring fencing London with a giant farm like that would not create a walkable community in respect of tending to farms. You would still need quite a big transport infrastructure. And you have just said “cities are non sustainable” so you are propping up something that is not sustainable. To truly meet your own objectives would require mostly much smaller communities spread out in the landscape wouldn’t it?
Or is it that you mean cities are not sustainable in their current form? If so you are looking at a massive rebuilding exercise.
Simple question. Is a high rise tower block, for example 10 floors, sustainable enough for you?