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"
Al Bundysays
I believe it is proven beyond a doubt that Killian will never give the slightest hint of what he envisions, most likely because he simply has zero clue about sustainable systems. So he screams, “NO!!! THAT isn’t sustainable!” Of course he has NEVER given ANY example of a sustainable activity beyond prehistoric lifestyles.
He’s here purely to scream that absolutely any guess anyone has about what might be slightly acceptable is pure proof that the guesser is evil scum.
Seriously, Special K, isn’t that exactly how all of your conversations go? You providing ZERO data or examples of sustainable stuff while screaming obscenities because the guy you’re berating obviously is only not doing the impossible, describe anything sustainable beyond rock and wood construction in a way that wouldn’t bring down a hail of insults.
Killian: ZERO sustainable examples. Totally worthless.
Killiansays
nigel: 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.
This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.
Stop saying this.
Killiansays
nigelj: 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.</b
And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it.
Stop making unintelligent, defensive comments. Grow up at some point, demonstrated by taking responsibility for your stupid, and by no longer doing stupid. I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD. You cannot redefine it to play stupid word games or engage in denial of the necessary.
A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. There is no such thing as kind of or mostly sustainable.
Stop saying stupid shit!
In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least)
Bullshit. Bauxite, remember? As currently produced, you won’t get out of this century. Stop with the goddamned lies.
provided we recycle the components
Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim.
BPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
Killiansays
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.
The consensus of the peanut Gallery? Really? That’s what you hang your hat on?
None of you has my record. None of you even has a record. And, I repeat, for 6 months I indulged your foolishness before finally being driven to distraction. You didn’t even try to deny it, you tried to excuse it. You didn’t lie? There is barely a response to me in which you do not prevaricate in some form. What was it you said, people can only burn wood? Flat out lie.
Engineer-Poet says: “The innumerate troll wrote @224”
Ah yes, the Famous Engineer, who proves his arguments by assuring that he has an engineering diploma (“Then there’s the little matter of my sheepskin”) and who shows contempt to others: “And this ends the chemistry lesson” after posts in which he shows his ignorance – he:
– dismisses the amount of energy that can be stored in, and then released by combustion of, CH4 – by saying that CH4 which combustion RELEASES >800 kJ/mol, is ….”extraordinarily stable” (compare: Wikipedia: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its _lowest_ energy state”)
– confuses enthalpy of formation of CH4 with enthalphy of a reaction in which CH4 is one of the products
– thinks that high enthalpy of combustion of CH4 is a … “serious downside” for using CH4 for energy storage
– thinks that in production of heat by burning CH4 – pre-heating CH4 to start ignition is a … “waste heat”, which is lost instead being ADDED to the heat produced by burning CH4
– thinks that ignition of CH4 is such a big energetically problem that it negates usefulness of using CH4 to produce energy. Which not only would make idiots of all those engineers who run turbines on natural gas, but would be a serious disappointment to all the Poets who overcame this CH4 ignition problem by … striking a match, or lighting a cigarette lighter:
– see The Poetry of Flatulence” https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5548/1823.3
[For his other pearls on this subject – see their entire lists in 14, 48, 87, 100 etc.]
Now, after his initial ventures into the electricity (he couldn’t see the difference between the energy potential for BACK-UP of renewables, with energy generation for BASE LOAD), and after teaching opponents a “chemistry lesson” (above), he boldly goes into sustainability:
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.”
When I pointed out that a big part of this uranium (lower parts of the difficult to access ocean crust, and the thick continental crust) – our Engineer comes with a brilliant come-back:
“The innumerate troll wrote @224″
and equally brilliant argument:”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.”
Over WHAT time-scale would these processes bring your ENTIRE reservoir of uranium
in the entire Earth crust (=”36 trillion tons of uranium”) close enough to surface to be used by humans????
You know, because the uranium that we CANNOT access – DOES NOT count toward “sustainable”. As a … numerate genius, I presume, with an engineering “sheepskin” in your hand, you know this, right?
===
Piotr
Adam Leasays
Nigel@213
It is not just about minising use of non-renewable resources, it is also about changing our lives and our attitudes so non-renewable activities or consumption is minimised. We can’t practically build cars entirely out of timber, but how about living a more local lifestyle so that foot and bicycle can be used instead, and any long journeys done by bus or train? No more choosing a job and a house 60 miles apart and spending two hours commuting each way every day. How about not replacing electronic gadgets with the latest model just because someone somewhere claims you can’t be in the groovy gang otherwise? How about growing food locally and eating seasonally, so we don’t have to ship in as much from overseas? How about finding other ways to do business and holiday without flying hundreds or thousands of miles? How about dressing appropriately for cold weather instead of thinking you have to have your house at 25C so you can wear a T-shirt. Even better, design buildings to trap the sun in the winter, and shade the sun in summer, reducing the need for heating and air conditioning. How about using things until they wear out, and buying replacements from charity shops, which is essentially reusing instead of discarding. How about finding alternative uses for things instead of discarding?
Piotrsays
Killian: Every point made, even if made repeatedly, must be fully referenced in every post?
If the point is to derisively dismiss others – then YES. E.g:
——–
>>>> 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?)
See? No proof of bullshitness, not even clarity to what that hyperbole (“exaggerated statement, not to be taken literally”) was. Are you so conceited to think that you cast such pearls of your wisdom before pigs, that it is the reader’s duty to try to figure out what the Master wanted to convey?
> Killian: Re 223 Piotr bleated you meant your tautology
editorializing reference calls (“Re 223 Piotr bleated”). Classy!
> Killian: 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.
When somebody characterizes your statement as “tautology”, he/she doesn’t say that your views are “inaccurate”, quite the opposite: “Tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.” And you know that NOBODY here accused you of the inaccuracy:
“To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate. That concludes Phase I.” Killian (139)
Since you didn’t understand what “tautology” means – should I have used “platitude” instead? You know as in: “Platitude – a sanctimonious cliché, a statement that is not only old and overused but often moralistic and imperious.”
If the glove fits …. ;-)
>> Piotr (223) And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments
>Killian: You think that’s the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell.
No, here is my original text, BEFORE Killian’s manipulation:
“Piotr (223): 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 [several examples] And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments [another examples]”
See? I offered TWO frequent motives people have when posting – to convince others to your point of view (by sharing your analysis of facts), or to “win” discussion even at the cost of true and right. Seeing this you …. deleted the first motive and pretend that I advocated the latter one:
“ You think that[“winning” to boost one’s ego] is the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell”.
Well, that’s all I need to know what is your ethics worth, Killian. And your replies to the regulars as well as to strangers – tell me all I need to know about your motives and about the value of discussions with you.
– Killian to me: “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.”“Who gives a shit?” “You being a massive ass yourself, makes your claim ludicrous”; “That’s bullshit hyperbole”,“This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment”.
[Piotr: “shit” and “asses”, eh? Marius Tulius, eat your heart out!]
-Killian, another thread, to all critics of Michael Moore’s film: “It’s terribly ignorant and biased. Even if that film had gotten even more wrong with details, not one person who has criticized the film has had the guts, the moral character, nor the insight, apparently, to address what the movie claimed.”
– Killian to to the guest author on RC: Michael Tobis and his medical source: “ Are you utterly incapable of googling “regenerative agriculture” or “permaculture?” Whomever Greger is, he’s wrong. Flatly wrong. And I guarantee you they are did not include regeneratively designed systems he used in their analysis.”
Killian
[Piotr: the “Whomever Greger” is a MD, who wrote on negative effects of heavy-on-meat diet on health]
Killian to this group: “This is the last dip into the rabbit hole of idiocy: nigelj and Kevin”; “I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day.” “You are all fools choosing your egos over facts, information, logic, solutions, survival”
Ever heard about “Donald Trump” ? A guy who with a straight face accuses others of what he is/does himself? And like you is convinced about his superiority?
====
Piotr
Al Bundysays
Piotr: is ….”extraordinarily stable” (compare: Wikipedia: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its _lowest_ energy state”)
AB: Stop it. “Extraordinarily stable” does NOT mean ‘the absolute most stable thing in the universe and nothing else”.
Doofus. The qualifier “extraordinarily”, can’t be ignored. Uranium is wicked stable. Way more stable than CO2.
Your flailing grasp at finding something not extraordinarily doofesque when defining, say, “cold” as, well, not -100C, that’s not cold. Cold is absolute zero and absolutely nothing else. Right? Since stable is the mostest stable and nothing else, so I say iron is stable and CO2 is not even slightly stable.
Al Bundysays
And Piotr,
I enjoy your other stuff. Inciteful and entertaining.
But delving into definitions is, well, I firmly believe that:
Legalese is the refuge of the Wrong.
“You offhandedly chose a word and I’m going to parse that insignificant choice and subparse and reparse…”
To what end?
Al Bundysays
And I’ve skipped lots of your recent rantings, so tell me again why EP MUST use YOUR definition of stability and please tell me why nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, or, if nitroglycerin is less stable than gunpowder’, do you see the definition EP was using when he said “extraordinarily stable”?
Why should that definition be banned from civil discourse? Or, what’s your beef? EP’s right. So what? Man up and get on with the informative and entertaining stuff.
Al Bundysays
And I’ve skipped lots of your recent rantings, so tell me again why EP MUST use YOUR definition of stability and please tell me why nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, or, if nitroglycerin is less stable than gunpowder’, do you see the definition EP was using when he said “extraordinarily stable”?
Why should that definition be banned from civil discourse? Or, what’s your beef? EP’s right. So what? Man up and get on with the informative and entertaining stuff.
It’s easy. Just note that you and EP were using different definitions of “stable” and since the writer’s definition always rules you made an error by imposing your preferred definition.
Wow. Instant respect. What gal, guy, or whatever wouldn’t swoon after reading such words?
Al Bundysays
Piotr,
Let’s be clear. EP is saying that we need nuclear power because everything else is like a 4th of July sparkler one gives to kids. We need SERIOUS power.
And you despise his conclusion.
OK. But stuff it down your craw so it doesn’t clog your thinking.
Just sayin’
Al Bundysays
“Piotr (223): 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
AB: Sorry, but garbage. Ratings are internal. Killian, like perhaps 99.9999999% of internet posters scores stratospherically with almost every post. That’s how this beast feeds.
Seriously, Special K, isn’t that exactly how all of your conversations go? You providing ZERO data or examples of sustainable stuff while screaming obscenities because the guy you’re berating obviously is only not doing the impossible, describe anything sustainable beyond rock and wood construction in a way that wouldn’t bring down a hail of insults.
Killian: ZERO sustainable examples. Totally worthless.
OH, MY! So many posters have come to my own conclusions about Killian. Just laughing in tears here.
E-P 246: Rivers deliver 32,000 tons of uranium to the oceans every year.
BPL: Now explain how much energy it would take to separate that out.
To be honest, I can’t say what $400–$1000/kg U translates to in energy. What I can say is that $1000/kg U, 1 GW(th)-day/kg (assuming ~100% fission), 40% thermal efficiency and $0.05/kWh revenue translates to about 0.2¢/kWh power cost.
In other words, in a fast-breeder economy the cost of uranium is negligible regardless of the source.
“nigel: 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.”
“This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.”
No its not false. You are on record on this pages as stating that sustainable use of materials means indefinitely, therefore a truly regenerative society by that logic would only be able to use things like wood and stone. So a regnerative society that uses mineral resources is a compromise – but a good compromise. This is what I said. You do not appear to be able to take in the totality of what anyone says.
____________________________________________
Killian @253
“nigelj: 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.</b"
"And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it."
Fine, whatever. I can define it any way I want. There is currently no universally agreed definition of sustainable. No consensus. I will repeat what I've previously said, we can make renewables sustainable for a long time provided we recycle the materials, dont use them extravagantly, get the size of population down and improve energy efficieny? Yes or no? The only logical answer is yes.
"Stop making unintelligent, defensive comments. Grow up at some point, demonstrated by taking responsibility for your stupid, and by no longer doing stupid. I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD."
You have asserted your opinion. Show me published science on the issue or something authortitative by somebody else. As I previously said its all academic anyway, because it will come down on how prudent we should be with how we use materials. Instead of getting hooked up on your silly definitions, you need to say more about that.
"A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. "
No, one society or process can be more sustainable than another. It's obvious. Burning fossil fuels is less sustainable than renewables for several reasons. Yes or no?
"In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least)"
"Bullshit. Bauxite, remember? As currently produced, you won’t get out of this century. Stop with the goddamned lies."
Not lies or bullshit: 1) "As currently produced" is something that can potentially change, 2)Most bauxite estimates I've seen suggest two centuries 3) There are several other minerals that contain aluminium actively under investigation and in huge reserves, easily googled. 4)aluminium is abundant in the earths crust. 5)Sea water contains vast reserves of aluminium running to many bliions of tons as listed in the link below, 6)Renewables are not hugely reliant on aluminium, for example wind pylons can obviously be made of many other materials 7) Recycling aluminium will clearly allow the available reserves to last a long time.
"Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim."
No, I can make a claim based on a provision any time I want. And your comment is bizarre because YOU have said you support recycling.
"avoid extravagant use"
"More pigs."
No and strange because your own rhetoric constantly imples we be less extravagant.
"And get the size of human population down"
"And still more flying pigs."
No its not. And in your own comments on the Michal Moore movie you highlight the population "problem" and thus by obvious inference the need to get the size of the population down. And as was pointed out to you by others, rates of growth have ALREADY started falling since the 1960's. Absolute size of population is already falling in Japan and a couple of European countries. There is far more evidence of populating growth slowing and falling than all the stuff you think should happen.
nigeljsays
Adam Lea @260, I agree with the vast majority of that and I do some of it myself. Its kind of in the obvious commensense basket of environmental ideas.
But we still need a new energy source and we will need to build more than token amounts. This is where I differ from Killian who appears to have very ambitious ideas about how little we need, judging by what he posts.For example houses need quite a lot lof heating even if you wear a decent jumper, and expecting people to do more than this is getting ridiculous, I hope you can see this.
I’ve already posted information on this website about the value of passive solar heating, but these homes do cost more to build. These are already proving to be difficult ideas to sell to the public, sadly to say. So we need to get building a new energy grid. It can be scaled back if passive solar hoiusing was to take off.
nigeljsays
Killian @255
“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.”
“The consensus of the peanut Gallery? Really? That’s what you hang your hat on?”
Peanut gallery, another one of your insulting terms. And the peanut gallery includes a lot of people better qualified and smarter than you.
“None of you has my record. None of you even has a record. ”
Record of what? What I mostly see is contradictory statements and positions, easy guesses on future climate trends, and an amazing record of relentless empty bragging and personal abuse.
“And, I repeat, for 6 months I indulged your foolishness before finally being driven to distraction. ”
You drive us all to distraction. When I first read your comments you were very critical of modern technology and I did question this. You clarified by saying you accepted we needed a technology backbone which sounds like a good idea to me and I acknowledged that – then you went back to being hyper critical of modern technology so we all thought you must have abandoned your technology backbone idea and criticised you. Nowhere here has anyone lied. You must be twsited up if you cant see this.
“What was it you said, people can only burn wood? Flat out lie.”
I have never said this. I said that reductions in use of other materials are likely to make people burn more wood, and that will be a problem.
When it comes to lying, you need to look in the mirror.
Killiansays
254 Barton Paul LevensonBPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?
I’ll repeat: Look at my posts in 2013 and before. They were not like this. Look at the Peanut gallery from 2013 on.
While, IMO, we can’t just ‘simplify’ our way out of the pickle we are in for numerous reasons related to (inter alia) justice, envy, human psychology, social inertia, and the undesirability of civil and international war, it remains true that we must come to a reckoning with the ideology and practice of consumerism, which is clearly unsustainable–founded, as it is, upon the demonstrably false assumption of infinite growth.
I don’t claim to have ‘the answer’, unlike some who shall remain nameless, but it’s quite clear that as a pre-requisite we must as a culture recognize, clearly and unambigously, the reality of natural limits. We need then to define them as clearly as possible, figure out ways of living that are sufficiently ‘sustainable’, and then choose our way forward.
But social transformation is not fast, usually, and probably even less frequently intentional (as opposed to evolutionary or systemically forced.) So we need to be mitigating as fast as possible, even as we work toward real sustainability. I welcome (for instance) the spread of Teslas, even as I don’t expect, or wish, ever to see 8 billion of them on the roads.
It’s true that pragmatically it doesn’t matter if you make some progress toward your goal, if in the end you fail to reach it. But it’s also true that if you don’t make progress, failure is already guaranteed–and that almost all progress is incomplete in itself.
nigeljsays
Piotr @261 curiously enough I have referred in the past to Killian as a hard left version of Donald Trump.
nigeljsays
Killian @275
“BPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.”
“And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?”
Hilarious missing of the target. BPL would have his faults like anyone, but arrogance, insults, and hostility are not among them, not significantly. I mean that actually really stands out.
And look up NPD personality. It fits you like a glove. But none of us are perfect.
If you are frustrated that people dont respect you or your ideas, try a different ‘style’ of communicating them. Works for me. People are interested in your ideas, just not your endless tiresome name calling, and false accusations that people are lying. And when someone does call you names, you dont have to respond it kind. People call me names and I try not to escalate things even if Im tempted to.
Al Bundysays
EP: I don’t have the 3 hours.
AB: I can do it myself. Messier and whatnot, but what is, is.
And you just missed a grand opportunity to learn. Kinda surprised, but not at all, that you reject learning from a peer on this site.
Al Bundysays
Piotr: – thinks that in production of heat by burning CH4 – pre-heating CH4 to start ignition is a … “waste heat”, which is lost instead being ADDED to the heat produced by burning CH4
AB: liar or moron. EP spoke specifically and repeatedly about losses during creation of CH4. He SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY rejected any discussion about efficiency during combustion. Yet that’s alllllllll you can talk about cuz you got ZERO to say about the losses being discussed, the losses during the creation of a fuel.
At least attempt to stay within a few light years of the subject.
Al Bundysays
LevensonBPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
Killian: And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?
AB: given your current social situation, I’d guess you learned it from a pair of truly repulsive folks who should not have reproduced.
Eh, you’ve survived so far. But your screwed-up thinking ain’t our fault.
Al Bundysays
Nigel: People call me names and I try not to escalate things even if Im tempted to.
AB: That’s because you’re a p….
Oops. Did I almost say a naughty?
Al Bundysays
Killian: I’ll repeat: Look at my posts in 2013 and before. They were not like this. Look at the Peanut gallery from 2013 on.
You shits invented bullying and gaslighting.
AB: Obvious hyperbole. No prob. But here we have someone saying that he SENTENCED all of us for being shits to, well, unlimited years of abuse. Who the ef cares about 2013 posts? Morons and folks who use anslly-inserted wooden backbones.
Deal with us as we are in 2020, Killian, or go to Hell.
Killiansays
Re #260 Adam Lea said It is not just about minising use of non-renewable resources, it is also about changing our lives and our attitudes so non-renewable activities or consumption is minimised.
Thus, a new paradigm. Living differently. Living simply.
We can’t practically build cars entirely out of timber, but how about living a more local lifestyle so that foot and bicycle can be used instead [et al.]
All of which is what I have said for years: Simplicity, Bridge Tech, Embedded Energy, Appropriate Tech. Yet all these shits-for-brains hear is “Caveman!”
It’s willful denial of regenerative systems. I have tried for a couple of weeks to get these regenerative systems denialsts to FINALLY do what I have asked them to do for years: Define the terms, have the conversation within the bounds of reality, not denial, ideology, personal animosity and outright fuckery and THEN negotiate the transition.
It is impossible. they are here to see their own words in print, to bully, to harass, and nothing more.
I asked them to *only* answer the questions asked. There was a reason for that: A step-by-step walk through what regenerative systems are, the realities of the risk analysis WRT climate and the ecosystem, and which solutions *actually* make a regenerative world possible.
What were their responses? No! And get this from Kevin – and I mean this is elementary school level logic, so it can’t be he doesn’t understand – Define indefinitely! How long is indefinitely?!
Me: Non-responsive.
Kevin: Asshole!
Go back and read it for yourself. Insane shit.
You and I understand these things, they do not and do not wish to. To be fair, they are clearly frightened of a regenerative future as demonstrated by this logical circle they refuse to stop engaging in:
ALL: Our society is unsustainable > ME: the world is finite > THEM: Uh-uh! Recycling! Unknown future tech! > ME: Magical thinking. Moving on… ALL: we must change something > THEM: we are not willing to actually live sustainably > ME: this is suicidal > THEM: BUT we are willing to do almost sustainable > ME: that’s just slower suicide > THEM: but people won’t! We won’t! > ME: Did you tell them the reality of climate risk and what regenerative really is? > THEM: No. Because your definitions are wrong! > Me: They’re not my definitions, they’re THE definitions. > THEM: Uh-uh! > Me: Then suicide it is > THEM: you’re an extremist! > Uh, no, the world is unsustainable > repeat ad nauseum.
And you just missed a grand opportunity to learn. Kinda surprised, but not at all, that you reject learning from a peer on this site.
I’ve got my hands full, and unless I have a bunch of things to do in your area I can’t take the time to travel there. I’m hoping to get a vacation this year but with the COVID crap it’s not looking good.
you got ZERO to say about the losses being discussed
This is not a group that suffers fools gladly, is it? I knew there was a reason I liked it here.
Deal with us as we are in 2020, Killian, or go to Hell.
Been there. The Dam Site Inn is the best place in the country by a dam site.
As long as we are talking about sustainability, let me pose a question or five:
1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?
2. Are lignin-based or -derived compounds sustainable? We may be able to make resins that way.
3. Magnesium comes from seawater and returns to seawater. Is it sustainable?
4. Aluminum is a component of many clay-forming minerals. It is not as easy to refine from them as it is from bauxite, but it’s possible in principle. If our consumption is less than the rate of weathering to clays, is that sustainable?
5. We can make carbon nanofibers out of CO2 by electrolysis of molten lithium carbonate baths. Is that sustainable?
nigeljsays
Killian @284,
Oh dear lots of “poor me”going on here.
“All of which is what I have said for years: Simplicity, Bridge Tech, Embedded Energy, Appropriate Tech. (Responding to Adam Leas suggestiond on how to reduce use of resources) . Yet all these shits-for-brains hear is “Caveman!”
I suggested you were promoting a near cave man existence because 1) You repeatedly told us how wonderful these cultures were 2) you told us how useless modern tech was, and 3) You rubbished modern civilisation and told us it was no better than indigenous culture. Remember AB and Alan 100’s comments? So yeah I thought you had given up on your technology backbone idea . What a surprise that I would conclude this (SARCASM).
I’ve always supported much of what Adam Lea described, and said so on these pages from day one, but it is only a small subset of what Killian proposes. And there lies the differences I have with some of his views.
“It’s willful denial of regenerative systems. ”
Absolutely ridiculous. We can all see regenerative systems about us in nature and most people here support copying that by reducing waste. And this is where you create more confusion. Let me remind you of your comments @102:
“Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources. 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.)”
Clearly products made with the earths finite mineral resources do not meet either of these definitions. Only wood and stone do. You actually AGREED to this when I posted it. Modern tech cannot by your own definition be a regenerative system or part of the same. The nearest it can get is by recycling. Talking about a regenerative society that uses a “technology backbone”, or regenerative systems that use tech is a bit of a contradiction and a nonsense.
Talking about a sustainable society makes more sense and can be defined. Google the United Nations definition. Look at my definition.
“I have tried for a couple of weeks to get these regenerative systems denialsts to FINALLY do what I have asked them to do for years: Define the terms, have the conversation within the bounds of reality, not denial, ideology, personal animosity and outright fuckery and THEN negotiate the transition.”
I’ve defined the terms as I see it, I have not called people arsehats like you do. I have no interest in negotiating some transition to some more primitive society if that what you mean (does anyone know?).
Instead I’m interested in prolonging a tech based culture as long as we can, but with less waste, more recycling, and less extravagance in use of resources, protecting biodiversity, and getting the size of population down, simple things most people can grasp without needing a Phd in environmentalism. And everything else clearly flows from those 5 points. We dont need to agonise over definitions too much and specifically try to create some ‘regenerative’ society as such. If we do still run out of some minerals life will go in in a simpler form.
nigeljsays
Killian @284 (continued)
“ALL: Our society is unsustainable > ME: the world is finite > THEM: Uh-uh! Recycling! Unknown future tech! > ME: Magical thinking.”
And yet Killian himself strongly promotes recycling, and has suggested tech needs to develop further, even if we use less quantitatively. Its like so contradictory, or he tries to have things every which way.
“Moving on… ALL: we must change something > THEM: we are not willing to actually live sustainably”.
Not Killians ludicrous definition of sustainable society.
“> ME: this is suicidal > THEM: BUT we are willing to do almost sustainable”
We have to do “almost sustainable” because the only truly sustainable solution by your OWN definition is something like hunter gatherer culture, and you yourself have said you don’t want to do that! So whether you like it or not creating a sustainable society that uses modern tech at any level is really about making things as sustainable as reasonably possible. Its shades of grey. And the best we can do is sustain things for as long as possible.
“L > ME: that’s just slower suicide > THEM: but people won’t! We won’t!”
People are unlikely to go very low tech. Just a fact of life.
“> ME: Did you tell them the reality of climate risk and what regenerative really is? > THEM: No. Because your definitions are wrong!”
Just a lie. The best consensus we have on the reality of climate risk is the IPCC I remind people of that all the time. Anything beyond this is one persons opinion.
“> Me: They’re not my definitions, they’re THE definitions.”
Such arrogance.
“They will not even have the conversation.”
We are having the conversation. Indisputably. You are just annoyed that people don’t see it all your way.
“They are frightened children.”
Look in the mirror. You talk about the end of the world all the time, like a frightened child.
Adam Leasays
273: Yes I can see that. I did an experiment one winter by setting the thermostat to 10C and compensated by wearing a hoodie over my normal clothes. It is doable, but very tough, because it is a constant battle against being cold (you don’t tend to do vigorous activity indoors). Obviously people who live in cooler climates aren’t going to live like that en-mass.
It would be interesting to know what it is like to live in a home built to passivhaus standards, whether in a temperate climate it is possible to almost dispense with space heating. The problem with buildings is, even if all new builds were built with energy efficiency prioritised, there are still millions of older inefficient buildings, what do you do about those?
Steven Emmersonsays
David B. Benson@268, The article you referenced doesn’t answer BPL’s question: it indicates improvement in one component but not the total cost of extracting uranium from seawater.
nigeljsays
Adam Lea, @291
Youre a brave man. I have tried a similar experiment with the thermostat set at about 10 degrees c and it was far too cold even with two hoodies. It’s the inactivity of course, just sitting.
I have my thermostat set at about 16 degrees c and I still need a decent hoodie over a shirt. But that’s ok, I don’t expect to have it set at 22 degrees and wander around half naked. I could afford to, but that is just wasteful.
How much space heating a (fully) passive solar home needs depends on the local climate. If it gets mostly sunny days and temperatures aren’t sub zero at night, you will need very little use of space heating. If its like the UK with lots of cloudy days and very cold sub zero nights, you would still need significant use of heating. But you would still use much less heating than a conventional home, easily 50% probably near 70% less, from what Iv’e read but I don’t have the articles and numbers at my fingertips.
What to do about older buildings? Its always possible to improve their performance. The easiest thing is double or triple glazing and it makes a significant difference. The next thing is extra wall and ceiling insulation, but this can be costly if you have to remove interior wall linings to install insulation, and you might get less overall return for your dollar. But improving insulation can cut energy bills 10 – 20% easily.
The next thing to consider is solar gain. Making windows larger is going to probably be horrendously expensive in many cases. Adding massive heat sinking like a trombe wall would probably be very expensive. Unless you are an inventive and patient do it yourselfer. However if you already have good areas of glazing with good sunlight exposure, you are set up to be able to improve performance, by adding some extra heat sinking to store that energy. You can look at tiling some of the floors, adding an extra layer of plaster board to some of the walls, and so on. This is going to add a bit more energy savings maybe another 10% – 20% or so. It starts to add up.
But the capital costs do add up and the payback period is going to be several years. This sort of thing would benefit from a government subsidy, or tax concession. We have something like that to help insulate old homes with fibreglass batts, but not double glazing or the full passive solar treatment.
Killiansays
hack said Killian @252
“nigel: 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.”
“This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.”
No its not false. You are on record on this pages as stating that sustainable use of materials means indefinitely, therefore a truly regenerative society by that logic would only be able to use things like wood and stone.
And again you revert to the caveman lie. First FU for putting your ego ahead of humanity and the planet, denialist.
OVER AND OVER AND OVER I have said: Recycling, reuse, repurposing, embedded energy, Appropriate Tech, Bridge Tech and MAINTAINING R&D are ALL part of the process.
I make the point about sustainability/regenerativenewss to get you fear-driven solutions denialists to learn to frame your thinking. We never get past the goddamned caveman bullshit. That is EXACTLY why I tried to do a step-by-step process of laying down definitions, risks, etc., the Peanut Gallery couldn’t make it through the first one!
So a regnerative society that uses mineral resources is a compromise – but a good compromise.
That’s not regenerative. You can’t say non-regenerative is regenerative. You have to say the truth: “I’m not willing to live regeneratively, or, frankly, make any attempt to understand what that means. Therefore, I ignore the correct definition and insert my own and lie my ass off about it all.”
Unsustainable use of resources is NOT regenerative. Shut up on things you refuse to learn and/or accept.
Straw Man: Nobody EVER said we would not use resources. You CHOOSE to lie about this. That I emphasize what is and is not sustainable/regenerative DOES NOT equal saying never use anything. That is a STRAW MAN you put into every response.
As previously noted, the use of Embedded Energy does not require digging up *new* resources, and THAT is how you avoid further direct damage to ecosystems: You live within the boundaries of the existing, already-developed resource base. However, that base will *always* be shrinking and you *must* deal with that or accept you are insane.
This has all been said over and over. Three years of you lying every single time you pretend to address these things.
Killian @253
“nigelj: 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.</b"
"And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it."
Fine
whatever. I can define it any way I want.
You cannot, as the last three years have shown, have intelligent conversations on issues when people are constantly refusing to acknowledge reality, instead inserting their own head worms into everything.
There is currently no universally agreed definition of sustainable.
Not all people agree Earth is spheroid, that doesn’t change the fact it IS. It would not matter if 99.9% of humanity agreed with your stupidity on this, it would still be a TRUTH. You will learn to stop lying about it, learn to accept it as a limit every bit as real as the total amount of any given physical resource, or you won’t.
Odds are definitely against.
we can make renewables sustainable for a long time
nigel declares we can make dogs cats “for a long time.”
provided we recycle the materials, [etc]
No, genius, that is not “making them sustainable”, that is using embedded energy, conservation, etc., to extend their lifetimes.
dont use them extravagantly, get the size of population down and improve energy efficieny? Yes or no? The only logical answer is yes.
I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD.”
You have asserted your opinion. Show me published science on the issue or something authortitative by somebody else.
Prima facie. I don’t care that nobody else frames it this way. All that matters is the truth of it. If you have a 1 lb. ball of perfectium and can perfectly recycle it with no losses, you have sustainability. *Anything* less than perfect recyclability is unsustainable. That’s not a dirty thought to be hidden away and lied about, it’s a design parameter your fear, biases and sheer ignorance will not allow you to accept.
“A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. ”
No, one society or process can be more sustainable than another. It’s obvious. Burning fossil fuels is less sustainable than renewables for several reasons. Yes or no?
Good god…
“provided we recycle the components”
“Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim.”
No, I can make a claim based on a provision any time I want. And your comment is bizarre because YOU have said you support recycling.
Incredible…
“avoid extravagant use”
“More pigs.”
No and strange because your own rhetoric constantly imples we be less extravagant.
“And get the size of human population down”
“And still more flying pigs.”
No its not.
Try to get this: You DO NOT design based on magic. Those conditions do not exist now and MAY NEVER. It is rock-headed and likely suicidal to plan the future of humanity based on maybe, might, could be.
I couldn’t be bothered to even read the rest. I shouldn’t have responded to any of this.
nigeljsays
Engineer-Poet @288.
“1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?”
Is glass perfectly sustainable, could it last our civilisation literally forever? No because nothing lasts forever. Is glass sustainable for a very long time, perhaps many centuries? Yes, because silica is so abundant as you so perfectly describe, and provided we don’t waste scarce materials used in the manufacture of glass, and provided we don’t expect to be able to maintain a population of 20 billion people all living in Mies Van Der Rohe glass houses.
Killiansays
288 Engineer-Poet As long as we are talking about sustainability, let me pose a question or five:
1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?
Honestly, this is beyond my technical expertise, in specific, but in principles, of course not: Losses. Thermodynamics and physics always apply. More so, are the manufacturing, delivery and and installation, e.g., sustainable? No. So…
Whether or not you would try this would depend in the conditions present at the time and the needs of those involved, people and planet.
2. Are lignin-based or -derived compounds sustainable? We may be able to make resins that way.
3. Magnesium comes from seawater and returns to seawater. Is it sustainable?
4. Aluminum is a component of many clay-forming minerals. It is not as easy to refine from them as it is from bauxite, but it’s possible in principle. If our consumption is less than the rate of weathering to clays, is that sustainable?
5. We can make carbon nanofibers out of CO2 by electrolysis of molten lithium carbonate baths. Is that sustainable?
See previous. Note: #4 would still be no on vast time frames!
It is a poor interpretation of the issue of sustainability to frame it as something that prevents actions. It informs them. If you know what you wish to do is unsustainable, then you can make wise, rational decisions about the extent of use. That is why we must deal with the actual sustainability of things, not made-up definitions designed to allow ignoreant, suicidal decisions.
Killiansays
Adam Lea said 273: Yes I can see that. I did an experiment one winter by setting the thermostat to 10C and compensated by wearing a hoodie over my normal clothes. It is doable, but very tough, because it is a constant battle against being cold (you don’t tend to do vigorous activity indoors). Obviously people who live in cooler climates aren’t going to live like that en-mass.
People did and do. A large majority of humans live far more simply than you or I do. I watched an episode of a show from Britain where the family lived like the 1800’s as a sort of challenge. The woman specifically commented she had expected to be extremely uncomfortable with the clothes because, well, they *look* uncomfortable to us, and to always be too hot or too cold. She found none of these to be true.
“People won’t” is not much of an argument and should not be used in these discussions, imo. It’s a favorite of nigel’s, of course.
David B. Bensonsays
Steven Emmerson @292 — See Engineer-Poet @270 for an older survey of the cost of extracting uranium from seawater.
Al Bundysays
Killian: Nobody EVER said we would not use resources. You CHOOSE to lie about this. That I emphasize what is and is not sustainable/regenerative DOES NOT equal saying never use anything. That is a STRAW MAN you put into every
AB: Okayyy… So you’ve been whining about a super precise definition of sustainable, which you believe we should avoid?
Have you been posting cautionary tale s about how important it is to avoid the Purity Code of Immortal Sustainability?
Why else would you throw a decade-long hissy fit about the definition of a word that doesn’t match what you actually advocate?
nigeljsays
Killian @294
So basically you appear to be saying a “regenerative society” (and living regeneratively) can still use non renewable resources (up to a point)? If that’s what you are saying, I’m fine with that. I have always said a sustainable society can use non renewables provided we recycle non renewables and so on.
But you are creating huge confusion with your terminology of a “regenerative society” and “living regeneratively”, because such a society is using non regenerating materials like metals (essentially they are non regenerating). I think the use of terms like regenerative society is confusing and nonsensical, which is why you get so much push back from everyone.
And what happens if we try to live regeneratively by substituting regenrating materials like timber for metals? We risk running out of timber including native forests.
Its much better to have a philosophy with just a simple set of 4 or 5 key objectives: reduce waste, recycle more, get size of population down, be more frugal in the use of resources, conserve the biosphere. Remember the term “reducing waste” is a term with many meanings, a wide set of meanings.
It would help if you could state the most important three ways humans can live ‘regeneratively’.
I believe it is proven beyond a doubt that Killian will never give the slightest hint of what he envisions, most likely because he simply has zero clue about sustainable systems. So he screams, “NO!!! THAT isn’t sustainable!” Of course he has NEVER given ANY example of a sustainable activity beyond prehistoric lifestyles.
He’s here purely to scream that absolutely any guess anyone has about what might be slightly acceptable is pure proof that the guesser is evil scum.
Seriously, Special K, isn’t that exactly how all of your conversations go? You providing ZERO data or examples of sustainable stuff while screaming obscenities because the guy you’re berating obviously is only not doing the impossible, describe anything sustainable beyond rock and wood construction in a way that wouldn’t bring down a hail of insults.
Killian: ZERO sustainable examples. Totally worthless.
nigel: 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.
This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.
Stop saying this.
nigelj: 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.</b
And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it.
Stop making unintelligent, defensive comments. Grow up at some point, demonstrated by taking responsibility for your stupid, and by no longer doing stupid. I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD. You cannot redefine it to play stupid word games or engage in denial of the necessary.
A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. There is no such thing as kind of or mostly sustainable.
Stop saying stupid shit!
In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least)
Bullshit. Bauxite, remember? As currently produced, you won’t get out of this century. Stop with the goddamned lies.
provided we recycle the components
Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim.
avoid extravagant use
More pigs.
and get the size of human population down
And still more flying pigs.
K 242: You are all fools
BPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
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.
The consensus of the peanut Gallery? Really? That’s what you hang your hat on?
None of you has my record. None of you even has a record. And, I repeat, for 6 months I indulged your foolishness before finally being driven to distraction. You didn’t even try to deny it, you tried to excuse it. You didn’t lie? There is barely a response to me in which you do not prevaricate in some form. What was it you said, people can only burn wood? Flat out lie.
E-P 246: Rivers deliver 32,000 tons of uranium to the oceans every year.
BPL: Now explain how much energy it would take to separate that out.
EP,
$300 cash for 3 hours enough?
European Union, especially, promoting hydrogen as fuel. Here are dozens of links:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/718/hydrogen-fuel
Engineer-Poet says: “The innumerate troll wrote @224”
Ah yes, the Famous Engineer, who proves his arguments by assuring that he has an engineering diploma (“Then there’s the little matter of my sheepskin”) and who shows contempt to others: “And this ends the chemistry lesson” after posts in which he shows his ignorance – he:
– dismisses the amount of energy that can be stored in, and then released by combustion of, CH4 – by saying that CH4 which combustion RELEASES >800 kJ/mol, is ….”extraordinarily stable” (compare: Wikipedia: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its _lowest_ energy state”)
– confuses enthalpy of formation of CH4 with enthalphy of a reaction in which CH4 is one of the products
– thinks that high enthalpy of combustion of CH4 is a … “serious downside” for using CH4 for energy storage
– thinks that in production of heat by burning CH4 – pre-heating CH4 to start ignition is a … “waste heat”, which is lost instead being ADDED to the heat produced by burning CH4
– thinks that ignition of CH4 is such a big energetically problem that it negates usefulness of using CH4 to produce energy. Which not only would make idiots of all those engineers who run turbines on natural gas, but would be a serious disappointment to all the Poets who overcame this CH4 ignition problem by … striking a match, or lighting a cigarette lighter:
– see The Poetry of Flatulence” https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5548/1823.3
[For his other pearls on this subject – see their entire lists in 14, 48, 87, 100 etc.]
Now, after his initial ventures into the electricity (he couldn’t see the difference between the energy potential for BACK-UP of renewables, with energy generation for BASE LOAD), and after teaching opponents a “chemistry lesson” (above), he boldly goes into sustainability:
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.”
When I pointed out that a big part of this uranium (lower parts of the difficult to access ocean crust, and the thick continental crust) – our Engineer comes with a brilliant come-back:
“The innumerate troll wrote @224″
and equally brilliant argument:”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.”
Over WHAT time-scale would these processes bring your ENTIRE reservoir of uranium
in the entire Earth crust (=”36 trillion tons of uranium”) close enough to surface to be used by humans????
You know, because the uranium that we CANNOT access – DOES NOT count toward “sustainable”. As a … numerate genius, I presume, with an engineering “sheepskin” in your hand, you know this, right?
===
Piotr
Nigel@213
It is not just about minising use of non-renewable resources, it is also about changing our lives and our attitudes so non-renewable activities or consumption is minimised. We can’t practically build cars entirely out of timber, but how about living a more local lifestyle so that foot and bicycle can be used instead, and any long journeys done by bus or train? No more choosing a job and a house 60 miles apart and spending two hours commuting each way every day. How about not replacing electronic gadgets with the latest model just because someone somewhere claims you can’t be in the groovy gang otherwise? How about growing food locally and eating seasonally, so we don’t have to ship in as much from overseas? How about finding other ways to do business and holiday without flying hundreds or thousands of miles? How about dressing appropriately for cold weather instead of thinking you have to have your house at 25C so you can wear a T-shirt. Even better, design buildings to trap the sun in the winter, and shade the sun in summer, reducing the need for heating and air conditioning. How about using things until they wear out, and buying replacements from charity shops, which is essentially reusing instead of discarding. How about finding alternative uses for things instead of discarding?
Killian: Every point made, even if made repeatedly, must be fully referenced in every post?
If the point is to derisively dismiss others – then YES. E.g:
——–
>>>> 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?)
>>> Replies Killian (139): “No, you didn’t. That’s bullshit hyperbole.”
—–
See? No proof of bullshitness, not even clarity to what that hyperbole (“exaggerated statement, not to be taken literally”) was. Are you so conceited to think that you cast such pearls of your wisdom before pigs, that it is the reader’s duty to try to figure out what the Master wanted to convey?
> Killian: Re 223 Piotr bleated you meant your tautology
editorializing reference calls (“Re 223 Piotr bleated”). Classy!
> Killian: 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.
When somebody characterizes your statement as “tautology”, he/she doesn’t say that your views are “inaccurate”, quite the opposite: “Tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.” And you know that NOBODY here accused you of the inaccuracy:
“To your credit, gentlemen, none of you claimed the definition was inaccurate. That concludes Phase I.” Killian (139)
Since you didn’t understand what “tautology” means – should I have used “platitude” instead? You know as in: “Platitude – a sanctimonious cliché, a statement that is not only old and overused but often moralistic and imperious.”
If the glove fits …. ;-)
>> Piotr (223) And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments
>Killian: You think that’s the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell.
No, here is my original text, BEFORE Killian’s manipulation:
“Piotr (223): 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 [several examples] And you don’t “win” discussions by calling people names INSTEAD proving your accusations with falsifiable arguments [another examples]”
See? I offered TWO frequent motives people have when posting – to convince others to your point of view (by sharing your analysis of facts), or to “win” discussion even at the cost of true and right. Seeing this you …. deleted the first motive and pretend that I advocated the latter one:
“ You think that[“winning” to boost one’s ego] is the purpose of sharing facts and analysis? You’re the problem in a nutshell”.
Well, that’s all I need to know what is your ethics worth, Killian. And your replies to the regulars as well as to strangers – tell me all I need to know about your motives and about the value of discussions with you.
– Killian to me: “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.”“Who gives a shit?” “You being a massive ass yourself, makes your claim ludicrous”; “That’s bullshit hyperbole”,“This is an extremely stupid and ASSumptive comment”.
[Piotr: “shit” and “asses”, eh? Marius Tulius, eat your heart out!]
-Killian, another thread, to all critics of Michael Moore’s film: “It’s terribly ignorant and biased. Even if that film had gotten even more wrong with details, not one person who has criticized the film has had the guts, the moral character, nor the insight, apparently, to address what the movie claimed.”
– Killian to to the guest author on RC: Michael Tobis and his medical source: “ Are you utterly incapable of googling “regenerative agriculture” or “permaculture?” Whomever Greger is, he’s wrong. Flatly wrong. And I guarantee you they are did not include regeneratively designed systems he used in their analysis.”
Killian
[Piotr: the “Whomever Greger” is a MD, who wrote on negative effects of heavy-on-meat diet on health]
Killian to this group: “This is the last dip into the rabbit hole of idiocy: nigelj and Kevin”; “I keep trying to treat you all as adults. I will continue to. You all may surprise me and actually do it one day.” “You are all fools choosing your egos over facts, information, logic, solutions, survival”
Ever heard about “Donald Trump” ? A guy who with a straight face accuses others of what he is/does himself? And like you is convinced about his superiority?
====
Piotr
Piotr: is ….”extraordinarily stable” (compare: Wikipedia: “Thermodynamic stability occurs when a system is in its _lowest_ energy state”)
AB: Stop it. “Extraordinarily stable” does NOT mean ‘the absolute most stable thing in the universe and nothing else”.
Doofus. The qualifier “extraordinarily”, can’t be ignored. Uranium is wicked stable. Way more stable than CO2.
Your flailing grasp at finding something not extraordinarily doofesque when defining, say, “cold” as, well, not -100C, that’s not cold. Cold is absolute zero and absolutely nothing else. Right? Since stable is the mostest stable and nothing else, so I say iron is stable and CO2 is not even slightly stable.
And Piotr,
I enjoy your other stuff. Inciteful and entertaining.
But delving into definitions is, well, I firmly believe that:
Legalese is the refuge of the Wrong.
“You offhandedly chose a word and I’m going to parse that insignificant choice and subparse and reparse…”
To what end?
And I’ve skipped lots of your recent rantings, so tell me again why EP MUST use YOUR definition of stability and please tell me why nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, or, if nitroglycerin is less stable than gunpowder’, do you see the definition EP was using when he said “extraordinarily stable”?
Why should that definition be banned from civil discourse? Or, what’s your beef? EP’s right. So what? Man up and get on with the informative and entertaining stuff.
And I’ve skipped lots of your recent rantings, so tell me again why EP MUST use YOUR definition of stability and please tell me why nitroglycerin is no less stable than gunpowder’, or, if nitroglycerin is less stable than gunpowder’, do you see the definition EP was using when he said “extraordinarily stable”?
Why should that definition be banned from civil discourse? Or, what’s your beef? EP’s right. So what? Man up and get on with the informative and entertaining stuff.
It’s easy. Just note that you and EP were using different definitions of “stable” and since the writer’s definition always rules you made an error by imposing your preferred definition.
Wow. Instant respect. What gal, guy, or whatever wouldn’t swoon after reading such words?
Piotr,
Let’s be clear. EP is saying that we need nuclear power because everything else is like a 4th of July sparkler one gives to kids. We need SERIOUS power.
And you despise his conclusion.
OK. But stuff it down your craw so it doesn’t clog your thinking.
Just sayin’
“Piotr (223): 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
AB: Sorry, but garbage. Ratings are internal. Killian, like perhaps 99.9999999% of internet posters scores stratospherically with almost every post. That’s how this beast feeds.
Barton Paul Levenson @256 —
https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power
OH, MY! So many posters have come to my own conclusions about Killian. Just laughing in tears here.
BPL gets vague @256:
To be honest, I can’t say what $400–$1000/kg U translates to in energy. What I can say is that $1000/kg U, 1 GW(th)-day/kg (assuming ~100% fission), 40% thermal efficiency and $0.05/kWh revenue translates to about 0.2¢/kWh power cost.
In other words, in a fast-breeder economy the cost of uranium is negligible regardless of the source.
I don’t have the 3 hours.
Killian @252
“nigel: 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.”
“This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.”
No its not false. You are on record on this pages as stating that sustainable use of materials means indefinitely, therefore a truly regenerative society by that logic would only be able to use things like wood and stone. So a regnerative society that uses mineral resources is a compromise – but a good compromise. This is what I said. You do not appear to be able to take in the totality of what anyone says.
____________________________________________
Killian @253
“nigelj: 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.</b"
"And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it."
Fine, whatever. I can define it any way I want. There is currently no universally agreed definition of sustainable. No consensus. I will repeat what I've previously said, we can make renewables sustainable for a long time provided we recycle the materials, dont use them extravagantly, get the size of population down and improve energy efficieny? Yes or no? The only logical answer is yes.
"Stop making unintelligent, defensive comments. Grow up at some point, demonstrated by taking responsibility for your stupid, and by no longer doing stupid. I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD."
You have asserted your opinion. Show me published science on the issue or something authortitative by somebody else. As I previously said its all academic anyway, because it will come down on how prudent we should be with how we use materials. Instead of getting hooked up on your silly definitions, you need to say more about that.
"A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. "
No, one society or process can be more sustainable than another. It's obvious. Burning fossil fuels is less sustainable than renewables for several reasons. Yes or no?
"In essence we can sustain the use of renewables “for a long time”, (multiple centuries at least)"
"Bullshit. Bauxite, remember? As currently produced, you won’t get out of this century. Stop with the goddamned lies."
Not lies or bullshit: 1) "As currently produced" is something that can potentially change, 2)Most bauxite estimates I've seen suggest two centuries 3) There are several other minerals that contain aluminium actively under investigation and in huge reserves, easily googled. 4)aluminium is abundant in the earths crust. 5)Sea water contains vast reserves of aluminium running to many bliions of tons as listed in the link below, 6)Renewables are not hugely reliant on aluminium, for example wind pylons can obviously be made of many other materials 7) Recycling aluminium will clearly allow the available reserves to last a long time.
In sum total this clearly equals a long time.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/Urchin/mineral.html
"provided we recycle the components"
"Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim."
No, I can make a claim based on a provision any time I want. And your comment is bizarre because YOU have said you support recycling.
"avoid extravagant use"
"More pigs."
No and strange because your own rhetoric constantly imples we be less extravagant.
"And get the size of human population down"
"And still more flying pigs."
No its not. And in your own comments on the Michal Moore movie you highlight the population "problem" and thus by obvious inference the need to get the size of the population down. And as was pointed out to you by others, rates of growth have ALREADY started falling since the 1960's. Absolute size of population is already falling in Japan and a couple of European countries. There is far more evidence of populating growth slowing and falling than all the stuff you think should happen.
Adam Lea @260, I agree with the vast majority of that and I do some of it myself. Its kind of in the obvious commensense basket of environmental ideas.
But we still need a new energy source and we will need to build more than token amounts. This is where I differ from Killian who appears to have very ambitious ideas about how little we need, judging by what he posts.For example houses need quite a lot lof heating even if you wear a decent jumper, and expecting people to do more than this is getting ridiculous, I hope you can see this.
I’ve already posted information on this website about the value of passive solar heating, but these homes do cost more to build. These are already proving to be difficult ideas to sell to the public, sadly to say. So we need to get building a new energy grid. It can be scaled back if passive solar hoiusing was to take off.
Killian @255
“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.”
“The consensus of the peanut Gallery? Really? That’s what you hang your hat on?”
Peanut gallery, another one of your insulting terms. And the peanut gallery includes a lot of people better qualified and smarter than you.
“None of you has my record. None of you even has a record. ”
Record of what? What I mostly see is contradictory statements and positions, easy guesses on future climate trends, and an amazing record of relentless empty bragging and personal abuse.
“And, I repeat, for 6 months I indulged your foolishness before finally being driven to distraction. ”
You drive us all to distraction. When I first read your comments you were very critical of modern technology and I did question this. You clarified by saying you accepted we needed a technology backbone which sounds like a good idea to me and I acknowledged that – then you went back to being hyper critical of modern technology so we all thought you must have abandoned your technology backbone idea and criticised you. Nowhere here has anyone lied. You must be twsited up if you cant see this.
“What was it you said, people can only burn wood? Flat out lie.”
I have never said this. I said that reductions in use of other materials are likely to make people burn more wood, and that will be a problem.
When it comes to lying, you need to look in the mirror.
254 Barton Paul LevensonBPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?
I’ll repeat: Look at my posts in 2013 and before. They were not like this. Look at the Peanut gallery from 2013 on.
You shits invented bullying and gaslighting.
#260, Adam–
Yes, yes, and yes.
While, IMO, we can’t just ‘simplify’ our way out of the pickle we are in for numerous reasons related to (inter alia) justice, envy, human psychology, social inertia, and the undesirability of civil and international war, it remains true that we must come to a reckoning with the ideology and practice of consumerism, which is clearly unsustainable–founded, as it is, upon the demonstrably false assumption of infinite growth.
I don’t claim to have ‘the answer’, unlike some who shall remain nameless, but it’s quite clear that as a pre-requisite we must as a culture recognize, clearly and unambigously, the reality of natural limits. We need then to define them as clearly as possible, figure out ways of living that are sufficiently ‘sustainable’, and then choose our way forward.
But social transformation is not fast, usually, and probably even less frequently intentional (as opposed to evolutionary or systemically forced.) So we need to be mitigating as fast as possible, even as we work toward real sustainability. I welcome (for instance) the spread of Teslas, even as I don’t expect, or wish, ever to see 8 billion of them on the roads.
It’s true that pragmatically it doesn’t matter if you make some progress toward your goal, if in the end you fail to reach it. But it’s also true that if you don’t make progress, failure is already guaranteed–and that almost all progress is incomplete in itself.
Piotr @261 curiously enough I have referred in the past to Killian as a hard left version of Donald Trump.
Killian @275
“BPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.”
“And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?”
Hilarious missing of the target. BPL would have his faults like anyone, but arrogance, insults, and hostility are not among them, not significantly. I mean that actually really stands out.
And look up NPD personality. It fits you like a glove. But none of us are perfect.
If you are frustrated that people dont respect you or your ideas, try a different ‘style’ of communicating them. Works for me. People are interested in your ideas, just not your endless tiresome name calling, and false accusations that people are lying. And when someone does call you names, you dont have to respond it kind. People call me names and I try not to escalate things even if Im tempted to.
EP: I don’t have the 3 hours.
AB: I can do it myself. Messier and whatnot, but what is, is.
And you just missed a grand opportunity to learn. Kinda surprised, but not at all, that you reject learning from a peer on this site.
Piotr: – thinks that in production of heat by burning CH4 – pre-heating CH4 to start ignition is a … “waste heat”, which is lost instead being ADDED to the heat produced by burning CH4
AB: liar or moron. EP spoke specifically and repeatedly about losses during creation of CH4. He SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY rejected any discussion about efficiency during combustion. Yet that’s alllllllll you can talk about cuz you got ZERO to say about the losses being discussed, the losses during the creation of a fuel.
At least attempt to stay within a few light years of the subject.
LevensonBPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
Killian: And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?
AB: given your current social situation, I’d guess you learned it from a pair of truly repulsive folks who should not have reproduced.
Eh, you’ve survived so far. But your screwed-up thinking ain’t our fault.
Nigel: People call me names and I try not to escalate things even if Im tempted to.
AB: That’s because you’re a p….
Oops. Did I almost say a naughty?
Killian: I’ll repeat: Look at my posts in 2013 and before. They were not like this. Look at the Peanut gallery from 2013 on.
You shits invented bullying and gaslighting.
AB: Obvious hyperbole. No prob. But here we have someone saying that he SENTENCED all of us for being shits to, well, unlimited years of abuse. Who the ef cares about 2013 posts? Morons and folks who use anslly-inserted wooden backbones.
Deal with us as we are in 2020, Killian, or go to Hell.
Re #260 Adam Lea said It is not just about minising use of non-renewable resources, it is also about changing our lives and our attitudes so non-renewable activities or consumption is minimised.
Thus, a new paradigm. Living differently. Living simply.
We can’t practically build cars entirely out of timber, but how about living a more local lifestyle so that foot and bicycle can be used instead [et al.]
All of which is what I have said for years: Simplicity, Bridge Tech, Embedded Energy, Appropriate Tech. Yet all these shits-for-brains hear is “Caveman!”
It’s willful denial of regenerative systems. I have tried for a couple of weeks to get these regenerative systems denialsts to FINALLY do what I have asked them to do for years: Define the terms, have the conversation within the bounds of reality, not denial, ideology, personal animosity and outright fuckery and THEN negotiate the transition.
It is impossible. they are here to see their own words in print, to bully, to harass, and nothing more.
I asked them to *only* answer the questions asked. There was a reason for that: A step-by-step walk through what regenerative systems are, the realities of the risk analysis WRT climate and the ecosystem, and which solutions *actually* make a regenerative world possible.
What were their responses? No! And get this from Kevin – and I mean this is elementary school level logic, so it can’t be he doesn’t understand – Define indefinitely! How long is indefinitely?!
Me: Non-responsive.
Kevin: Asshole!
Go back and read it for yourself. Insane shit.
You and I understand these things, they do not and do not wish to. To be fair, they are clearly frightened of a regenerative future as demonstrated by this logical circle they refuse to stop engaging in:
ALL: Our society is unsustainable > ME: the world is finite > THEM: Uh-uh! Recycling! Unknown future tech! > ME: Magical thinking. Moving on… ALL: we must change something > THEM: we are not willing to actually live sustainably > ME: this is suicidal > THEM: BUT we are willing to do almost sustainable > ME: that’s just slower suicide > THEM: but people won’t! We won’t! > ME: Did you tell them the reality of climate risk and what regenerative really is? > THEM: No. Because your definitions are wrong! > Me: They’re not my definitions, they’re THE definitions. > THEM: Uh-uh! > Me: Then suicide it is > THEM: you’re an extremist! > Uh, no, the world is unsustainable > repeat ad nauseum.
Over ten years of this utter stupidity.
They will not listen.
They will not even have the conversation.
They are frightened children.
BPL: And that’s the problem with most of Killian’s posts right there. His unbelievable hostility and arrogance.
K: And where do you think I learned it from, you gaslighting, hypocritical asshat?
BPL: See what I mean?
BPL @285, “See what I mean?” Yes, been seeing it for about 3 years now. Its Guinesss book of world records material.
I’m glad for you.
What does it have to do with astronomy?
I’ve got my hands full, and unless I have a bunch of things to do in your area I can’t take the time to travel there. I’m hoping to get a vacation this year but with the COVID crap it’s not looking good.
This is not a group that suffers fools gladly, is it? I knew there was a reason I liked it here.
Been there. The Dam Site Inn is the best place in the country by a dam site.
As long as we are talking about sustainability, let me pose a question or five:
1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?
2. Are lignin-based or -derived compounds sustainable? We may be able to make resins that way.
3. Magnesium comes from seawater and returns to seawater. Is it sustainable?
4. Aluminum is a component of many clay-forming minerals. It is not as easy to refine from them as it is from bauxite, but it’s possible in principle. If our consumption is less than the rate of weathering to clays, is that sustainable?
5. We can make carbon nanofibers out of CO2 by electrolysis of molten lithium carbonate baths. Is that sustainable?
Killian @284,
Oh dear lots of “poor me”going on here.
“All of which is what I have said for years: Simplicity, Bridge Tech, Embedded Energy, Appropriate Tech. (Responding to Adam Leas suggestiond on how to reduce use of resources) . Yet all these shits-for-brains hear is “Caveman!”
I suggested you were promoting a near cave man existence because 1) You repeatedly told us how wonderful these cultures were 2) you told us how useless modern tech was, and 3) You rubbished modern civilisation and told us it was no better than indigenous culture. Remember AB and Alan 100’s comments? So yeah I thought you had given up on your technology backbone idea . What a surprise that I would conclude this (SARCASM).
I’ve always supported much of what Adam Lea described, and said so on these pages from day one, but it is only a small subset of what Killian proposes. And there lies the differences I have with some of his views.
“It’s willful denial of regenerative systems. ”
Absolutely ridiculous. We can all see regenerative systems about us in nature and most people here support copying that by reducing waste. And this is where you create more confusion. Let me remind you of your comments @102:
“Define “sustainable”: Able to be continued indefinitely without damaging the environment or depleting non-renewable resources. 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.)”
Clearly products made with the earths finite mineral resources do not meet either of these definitions. Only wood and stone do. You actually AGREED to this when I posted it. Modern tech cannot by your own definition be a regenerative system or part of the same. The nearest it can get is by recycling. Talking about a regenerative society that uses a “technology backbone”, or regenerative systems that use tech is a bit of a contradiction and a nonsense.
Talking about a sustainable society makes more sense and can be defined. Google the United Nations definition. Look at my definition.
“I have tried for a couple of weeks to get these regenerative systems denialsts to FINALLY do what I have asked them to do for years: Define the terms, have the conversation within the bounds of reality, not denial, ideology, personal animosity and outright fuckery and THEN negotiate the transition.”
I’ve defined the terms as I see it, I have not called people arsehats like you do. I have no interest in negotiating some transition to some more primitive society if that what you mean (does anyone know?).
Instead I’m interested in prolonging a tech based culture as long as we can, but with less waste, more recycling, and less extravagance in use of resources, protecting biodiversity, and getting the size of population down, simple things most people can grasp without needing a Phd in environmentalism. And everything else clearly flows from those 5 points. We dont need to agonise over definitions too much and specifically try to create some ‘regenerative’ society as such. If we do still run out of some minerals life will go in in a simpler form.
Killian @284 (continued)
“ALL: Our society is unsustainable > ME: the world is finite > THEM: Uh-uh! Recycling! Unknown future tech! > ME: Magical thinking.”
And yet Killian himself strongly promotes recycling, and has suggested tech needs to develop further, even if we use less quantitatively. Its like so contradictory, or he tries to have things every which way.
“Moving on… ALL: we must change something > THEM: we are not willing to actually live sustainably”.
Not Killians ludicrous definition of sustainable society.
“> ME: this is suicidal > THEM: BUT we are willing to do almost sustainable”
We have to do “almost sustainable” because the only truly sustainable solution by your OWN definition is something like hunter gatherer culture, and you yourself have said you don’t want to do that! So whether you like it or not creating a sustainable society that uses modern tech at any level is really about making things as sustainable as reasonably possible. Its shades of grey. And the best we can do is sustain things for as long as possible.
“L > ME: that’s just slower suicide > THEM: but people won’t! We won’t!”
People are unlikely to go very low tech. Just a fact of life.
“> ME: Did you tell them the reality of climate risk and what regenerative really is? > THEM: No. Because your definitions are wrong!”
Just a lie. The best consensus we have on the reality of climate risk is the IPCC I remind people of that all the time. Anything beyond this is one persons opinion.
“> Me: They’re not my definitions, they’re THE definitions.”
Such arrogance.
“They will not even have the conversation.”
We are having the conversation. Indisputably. You are just annoyed that people don’t see it all your way.
“They are frightened children.”
Look in the mirror. You talk about the end of the world all the time, like a frightened child.
273: Yes I can see that. I did an experiment one winter by setting the thermostat to 10C and compensated by wearing a hoodie over my normal clothes. It is doable, but very tough, because it is a constant battle against being cold (you don’t tend to do vigorous activity indoors). Obviously people who live in cooler climates aren’t going to live like that en-mass.
It would be interesting to know what it is like to live in a home built to passivhaus standards, whether in a temperate climate it is possible to almost dispense with space heating. The problem with buildings is, even if all new builds were built with energy efficiency prioritised, there are still millions of older inefficient buildings, what do you do about those?
David B. Benson@268, The article you referenced doesn’t answer BPL’s question: it indicates improvement in one component but not the total cost of extracting uranium from seawater.
Adam Lea, @291
Youre a brave man. I have tried a similar experiment with the thermostat set at about 10 degrees c and it was far too cold even with two hoodies. It’s the inactivity of course, just sitting.
I have my thermostat set at about 16 degrees c and I still need a decent hoodie over a shirt. But that’s ok, I don’t expect to have it set at 22 degrees and wander around half naked. I could afford to, but that is just wasteful.
How much space heating a (fully) passive solar home needs depends on the local climate. If it gets mostly sunny days and temperatures aren’t sub zero at night, you will need very little use of space heating. If its like the UK with lots of cloudy days and very cold sub zero nights, you would still need significant use of heating. But you would still use much less heating than a conventional home, easily 50% probably near 70% less, from what Iv’e read but I don’t have the articles and numbers at my fingertips.
What to do about older buildings? Its always possible to improve their performance. The easiest thing is double or triple glazing and it makes a significant difference. The next thing is extra wall and ceiling insulation, but this can be costly if you have to remove interior wall linings to install insulation, and you might get less overall return for your dollar. But improving insulation can cut energy bills 10 – 20% easily.
The next thing to consider is solar gain. Making windows larger is going to probably be horrendously expensive in many cases. Adding massive heat sinking like a trombe wall would probably be very expensive. Unless you are an inventive and patient do it yourselfer. However if you already have good areas of glazing with good sunlight exposure, you are set up to be able to improve performance, by adding some extra heat sinking to store that energy. You can look at tiling some of the floors, adding an extra layer of plaster board to some of the walls, and so on. This is going to add a bit more energy savings maybe another 10% – 20% or so. It starts to add up.
But the capital costs do add up and the payback period is going to be several years. This sort of thing would benefit from a government subsidy, or tax concession. We have something like that to help insulate old homes with fibreglass batts, but not double glazing or the full passive solar treatment.
hack said Killian @252
“nigel: 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.”
“This is false. I have already corrected you on this. I did it years ago when you tried the caveman bullshit, and every other time you’ve tried to pass off this Straw Man/lie.”
No its not false. You are on record on this pages as stating that sustainable use of materials means indefinitely, therefore a truly regenerative society by that logic would only be able to use things like wood and stone.
And again you revert to the caveman lie. First FU for putting your ego ahead of humanity and the planet, denialist.
OVER AND OVER AND OVER I have said: Recycling, reuse, repurposing, embedded energy, Appropriate Tech, Bridge Tech and MAINTAINING R&D are ALL part of the process.
I make the point about sustainability/regenerativenewss to get you fear-driven solutions denialists to learn to frame your thinking. We never get past the goddamned caveman bullshit. That is EXACTLY why I tried to do a step-by-step process of laying down definitions, risks, etc., the Peanut Gallery couldn’t make it through the first one!
So a regnerative society that uses mineral resources is a compromise – but a good compromise.
That’s not regenerative. You can’t say non-regenerative is regenerative. You have to say the truth: “I’m not willing to live regeneratively, or, frankly, make any attempt to understand what that means. Therefore, I ignore the correct definition and insert my own and lie my ass off about it all.”
Unsustainable use of resources is NOT regenerative. Shut up on things you refuse to learn and/or accept.
Straw Man: Nobody EVER said we would not use resources. You CHOOSE to lie about this. That I emphasize what is and is not sustainable/regenerative DOES NOT equal saying never use anything. That is a STRAW MAN you put into every response.
As previously noted, the use of Embedded Energy does not require digging up *new* resources, and THAT is how you avoid further direct damage to ecosystems: You live within the boundaries of the existing, already-developed resource base. However, that base will *always* be shrinking and you *must* deal with that or accept you are insane.
This has all been said over and over. Three years of you lying every single time you pretend to address these things.
Killian @253
“nigelj: 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.</b"
"And that is exactly what I said it is: You redefining it."
Fine
whatever. I can define it any way I want.
You cannot, as the last three years have shown, have intelligent conversations on issues when people are constantly refusing to acknowledge reality, instead inserting their own head worms into everything.
There is currently no universally agreed definition of sustainable.
Not all people agree Earth is spheroid, that doesn’t change the fact it IS. It would not matter if 99.9% of humanity agreed with your stupidity on this, it would still be a TRUTH. You will learn to stop lying about it, learn to accept it as a limit every bit as real as the total amount of any given physical resource, or you won’t.
Odds are definitely against.
we can make renewables sustainable for a long time
nigel declares we can make dogs cats “for a long time.”
provided we recycle the materials, [etc]
No, genius, that is not “making them sustainable”, that is using embedded energy, conservation, etc., to extend their lifetimes.
dont use them extravagantly, get the size of population down and improve energy efficieny? Yes or no? The only logical answer is yes.
I have told this forum too many times now that sustainability is a THRESHOLD.”
You have asserted your opinion. Show me published science on the issue or something authortitative by somebody else.
Prima facie. I don’t care that nobody else frames it this way. All that matters is the truth of it. If you have a 1 lb. ball of perfectium and can perfectly recycle it with no losses, you have sustainability. *Anything* less than perfect recyclability is unsustainable. That’s not a dirty thought to be hidden away and lied about, it’s a design parameter your fear, biases and sheer ignorance will not allow you to accept.
“A thing, a process, a society, et al., is either sustainable or it is not. ”
No, one society or process can be more sustainable than another. It’s obvious. Burning fossil fuels is less sustainable than renewables for several reasons. Yes or no?
Good god…
“provided we recycle the components”
“Provided pigs learn to fly. When they CAN fly, THEN you can make that claim.”
No, I can make a claim based on a provision any time I want. And your comment is bizarre because YOU have said you support recycling.
Incredible…
“avoid extravagant use”
“More pigs.”
No and strange because your own rhetoric constantly imples we be less extravagant.
“And get the size of human population down”
“And still more flying pigs.”
No its not.
Try to get this: You DO NOT design based on magic. Those conditions do not exist now and MAY NEVER. It is rock-headed and likely suicidal to plan the future of humanity based on maybe, might, could be.
I couldn’t be bothered to even read the rest. I shouldn’t have responded to any of this.
Engineer-Poet @288.
“1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?”
Is glass perfectly sustainable, could it last our civilisation literally forever? No because nothing lasts forever. Is glass sustainable for a very long time, perhaps many centuries? Yes, because silica is so abundant as you so perfectly describe, and provided we don’t waste scarce materials used in the manufacture of glass, and provided we don’t expect to be able to maintain a population of 20 billion people all living in Mies Van Der Rohe glass houses.
288 Engineer-Poet As long as we are talking about sustainability, let me pose a question or five:
1. Is glass sustainable? In principle, we can reduce almost any silicate mineral to water, silane and other elements, then burn the silane to make quartz; this is how the ultra-pure material for optical fibers is made. Is that sustainable?
Honestly, this is beyond my technical expertise, in specific, but in principles, of course not: Losses. Thermodynamics and physics always apply. More so, are the manufacturing, delivery and and installation, e.g., sustainable? No. So…
Whether or not you would try this would depend in the conditions present at the time and the needs of those involved, people and planet.
2. Are lignin-based or -derived compounds sustainable? We may be able to make resins that way.
3. Magnesium comes from seawater and returns to seawater. Is it sustainable?
4. Aluminum is a component of many clay-forming minerals. It is not as easy to refine from them as it is from bauxite, but it’s possible in principle. If our consumption is less than the rate of weathering to clays, is that sustainable?
5. We can make carbon nanofibers out of CO2 by electrolysis of molten lithium carbonate baths. Is that sustainable?
See previous. Note: #4 would still be no on vast time frames!
It is a poor interpretation of the issue of sustainability to frame it as something that prevents actions. It informs them. If you know what you wish to do is unsustainable, then you can make wise, rational decisions about the extent of use. That is why we must deal with the actual sustainability of things, not made-up definitions designed to allow ignoreant, suicidal decisions.
Adam Lea said 273: Yes I can see that. I did an experiment one winter by setting the thermostat to 10C and compensated by wearing a hoodie over my normal clothes. It is doable, but very tough, because it is a constant battle against being cold (you don’t tend to do vigorous activity indoors). Obviously people who live in cooler climates aren’t going to live like that en-mass.
People did and do. A large majority of humans live far more simply than you or I do. I watched an episode of a show from Britain where the family lived like the 1800’s as a sort of challenge. The woman specifically commented she had expected to be extremely uncomfortable with the clothes because, well, they *look* uncomfortable to us, and to always be too hot or too cold. She found none of these to be true.
“People won’t” is not much of an argument and should not be used in these discussions, imo. It’s a favorite of nigel’s, of course.
Steven Emmerson @292 — See Engineer-Poet @270 for an older survey of the cost of extracting uranium from seawater.
Killian: Nobody EVER said we would not use resources. You CHOOSE to lie about this. That I emphasize what is and is not sustainable/regenerative DOES NOT equal saying never use anything. That is a STRAW MAN you put into every
AB: Okayyy… So you’ve been whining about a super precise definition of sustainable, which you believe we should avoid?
Have you been posting cautionary tale s about how important it is to avoid the Purity Code of Immortal Sustainability?
Why else would you throw a decade-long hissy fit about the definition of a word that doesn’t match what you actually advocate?
Killian @294
So basically you appear to be saying a “regenerative society” (and living regeneratively) can still use non renewable resources (up to a point)? If that’s what you are saying, I’m fine with that. I have always said a sustainable society can use non renewables provided we recycle non renewables and so on.
But you are creating huge confusion with your terminology of a “regenerative society” and “living regeneratively”, because such a society is using non regenerating materials like metals (essentially they are non regenerating). I think the use of terms like regenerative society is confusing and nonsensical, which is why you get so much push back from everyone.
And what happens if we try to live regeneratively by substituting regenrating materials like timber for metals? We risk running out of timber including native forests.
Its much better to have a philosophy with just a simple set of 4 or 5 key objectives: reduce waste, recycle more, get size of population down, be more frugal in the use of resources, conserve the biosphere. Remember the term “reducing waste” is a term with many meanings, a wide set of meanings.
It would help if you could state the most important three ways humans can live ‘regeneratively’.