[Bonjoy]

Perhaps when I have more time, energy and patience.

[Johnny Brown]

Whales are a great example aren't they? Whales have recently been found to be important ecosystem engineers - essentially most nutrients sink before they can be utilised. Whales move them back up the water column, initiating what is known as a tropic cascade, producing a far more productive system. So one of the knock on effects of killing most of the whales was to massively reduce the productivity of the oceans. Read any historical book on fishing and the former productivity of the seas is staggering.

Of course since then we have removed most of the fish too, all of whom play their own role in building a productive ecosystem. The signs are that depleted seas are not simply the same but with less fish, they are becoming totally different ecosystems with biomass concentrated in less useful species to humans such as jellyfish and squid. The same sort of ecosystem collapse has already been imposed on much of the land surface. Humans, it seems, will continue to use a resource until it is uneconomic, then look for another. So far, we've got away with it. But these knock on effects are seriously limiting future options.

Interesting thought too, to regard solar as infinite. Fossil fuels are essentially a form of stored solar energy accumulated over millions of years, which we have mostly consumed in a couple of hundred. The surface area of the planet required to replace the centuries of stored energy used every day, with that received in a day from solar/ biofuels/ wind, and still leave room to grow food for 8 billion, with the seas fucked, seems a tad hopeful. Let's pray governments get behind nuclear, and fast.

The idea of exploiting space for resources is fucking laughable solely from the economics, let alone the technology.

But keep your head in the sand Sloper, if you're lucky the foie gras may kill you before things get bad.

[petejh]

I've got to say while I don't agree with Sloper I do think it's a bit ironic to accuse him of having his head in the sand in a debate about climate change/resource depletion etc. I think he's right to say there exists a noticable mindset (his 'theism') in the environment/climate change/resource depletion debates which goes along the lines of: 'we could solve these problems if only we (humans) just acted rationally and altruistically'. That mindset to me seems like the biggest head in the sandpit of them all. (and yes I'm well aware of prisoner's dilemma).
Since when have humans ever acted rationally en masse? This is the species that has created bubbles in just about every commodity that's ever existed: from houses to tullips. Arguing that we could all, as a species, start acting altruistically toward the environmental now when all the evidence from thousands of years suggest otherwise, is the very definition of delusion. It aint going to happen, I think we'll probably adapt to changes in the climate and to resource depletion in the way humans always have through power struggles - there's no universal law that says the current population level is sustainable or that everyone on earth should be comfortable.

[slackline]

I've got to say while I don't agree with Sloper I do think it's a bit ironic to accuse him of having his head in the sand in a debate about climate change/resource depletion etc. I think he's right to say there exists a noticable mindset (his 'theism') in the environment/climate change/resource depletion debates which goes along the lines of: 'we could solve these problems if only we (humans) just acted rationally and altruistically'. That mindset to me seems like the biggest head in the sandpit of them all. (and yes I'm well aware of prisoner's dilemma).
Since when have humans ever acted rationally en masse? This is the species that has created bubbles in just about every commodity that's ever existed: from houses to tullips. Arguing that we could all, as a species, start acting altruistically toward the environmental now when all the evidence from thousands of years suggest otherwise, is the very definition of delusion. It aint going to happen, I think we'll probably adapt to changes in the climate and to resource depletion in the way humans always have through power struggles - there's no universal law that says the current population level is sustainable or that everyone on earth should be comfortable.

Point out to many that in this regard Homo sapiens aren't really any more developed than any other species and most would be taken aback and try countering with the fact that we have language and technology and cars and space flight and an internet full of cats, but if everything boils down to power struggles for access to limited resources then really we've not evolved much beyond basic survival instincts, just that as a species we've become really clever at killing each other more efficiently.

I've always thought for a long time that it would be nice if, as sentient beings able to understand history and develop contingency's, we did look out for each other and future generations a little more than nature's red teeth and claws have dictated in the past.  I recall reading a comment along these lines when I first read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene many years ago.  He basically was saying "This is how we've evolved, but we don't have to continue along these lines, we can break the chains".  Just tried a quick scan through the two prefaces of the copy I have but couldn't find the quote I was thinking of (perhaps its in The Extended Phenotype or The Blind Watchmaker) but a quick search led to this interview and the following quote...

I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it. Much of the message of my first book, "The Selfish Gene," was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. And when we sit down together to argue out and discuss and decide upon how we want to run our societies, I think we should hold up Darwinism as an awful warning for how we should not organize our societies.

It always saddens me when people say that humans can't learn from the mistakes history tells us about and that as a society we can't improve the lot of everyone for the better, mainly because if such thinking persists its a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If there were real will, perhaps under-pinned by a better understanding of how interconnected all life is through its evolution from common ancestors (which would hopefully do away with hokey religions, tribalism and nationalism) and the interconnected way in which the earth remains so far from chemical equilibrium (see Lovelock & Margulis' Gaia), to work towards a better society for all humans I believe it could be achieved. 

Rose-tinted idealism? Yes, but bearing all this in mind makes me slightly less of a selfish cunt when I go about my day.

[petejh]

 I remember reading that. I'd like for it to happen because it sounds great - but I think it would take a miracle like the end of capitalism for it to come about. As long as people want to buy things there'll be people making it their life's aim to making money. Resources are what enables that. Climate change/environmental degradation is the inevitable outcome. 'The planet' comes a distant 2nd.

'

selfish cnut

This interests me - sometimes when i hear people claim to be unselfish/less selfish in their actions it strikes me as a bit grandiose if they really think their individual actions, even collectively,  have any bearing on anything so massively complex and gigantic as a planet's 'system'. Other times i think good for them!

[slackline]

Wouldn't educating people that you don't need lots of things, one of the fundamental aspects that allows capitalism to persist, be a useful start? 

Quality of life isn't enhanced by having more and more possessions.

selfish cnut

This interests me - sometimes when i hear people claim to be unselfish/less selfish in their actions it strikes me as a bit grandiose if they really think their individual actions, even collectively,  have any bearing on anything so massively complex and gigantic as a planet's 'system'. Other times i think good for them!

When I use it I mean I just try not to think badly of others based on their appearance/race/age/sex/nationality/circumstances, we're all human beings, and try and help others where I can rather than thinking "fuck it, they can fend for themselves".  I don't always succeed but do try because you won't ever get a society to change, you can only get individuals to change.  Society is just the term for a group of individuals doing things, so if individuals are less selfish towards each other then society as a whole is. 

Since you mentioned game theory, there'll always be exploitive strategies that take advantage of altruism, but there are better strategies than tit-for-tat.  So if someone isn't nice to me I don't automatically strike them off of my xmas card list.

I don't think I'm particularly special in doing this though, many others do it too, and lots of them to a far greater extent than I do (e.g. relief workers, medics working for Red Cross/Medicine Sans Frontier etc.)

[Oldmanmatt]

I tend to agree with Peter and have to say Sloper has a point, albeit made with his usual lack of of diplomacy...

What Slakers has described seems to me to be the classic Liberal / Left wing dilemma. Democracy requires each to have equal say and yet we clearly cannot be relied on to make reasonable judgments. The obvious answer being the disenfranchising of the "socially unacceptable" or their total removal from society...

And that is just the most horrific thought possible for any right minded person.

So, our economic and political systems have evolved around avoiding that question.

By and large that has resulted in an improvement in the standard of living for many. Please! Before you hang me for that statement and remind me of the poverty in the world, hear me out.
My Father's Father, was raised in a single room, by a trench gassed Father and washer Woman Mother,, with Thirteen brothers and sisters; three of whom died before the age of five, in the slums of Coventry. A room they lived in until the Germans burned it in WW2.
AKA within living memory!

Our global consciousness is only just evolving and not at equal pace globally!

The fact that we are discussing it is amazing! The discussion is changing things. When my Grandfather was a boy, if there had been a famine in a part of Africa, no one in Britain would have known or cared.

However distasteful it may be to us armchair intellectuals, Slopers assertion that market forces will be the primary drive behind change, is probably correct. Educated, liberal, thinking, perceptive people are still very much an ignored minority. The vast majority, even in the affluent, well educated West, care more about Kim Kardashian's tits, than the future.

[petejh]

Wouldn't educating people that you don't need lots of things, one of the fundamental aspects that allows capitalism to persist, be a useful start? 

Quality of life isn't enhanced by having more and more possessions.

I completely agree - I'd be confident to say that I probably own less than the majority on here and certainly less than the majority overall - no car (someone else's), no house with all its contents (they're someone else's), as some will testify the same clothes forever! My rack, ropes and laptop are probably my single biggest possessions. But to extrapolate that to the entire population of the world and think that they could act that way - which is what's required for the point to have any meaning beyond a fashionable statement - is to be blind to the reality of how humans behave.

Since you mentioned game theory, there'll always be exploitive strategies that take advantage of altruism, but there are better strategies than tit-for-tat.  So if someone isn't nice to me I don't automatically strike them off of my xmas card list.

I don't think I'm particularly special in doing this though, many others do it too, and lots of them to a far greater extent than I do (e.g. relief workers, medics working for Red Cross/Medicine Sans Frontier etc.)

[/quote]

I'd say most of us behave that way. The point with game theory in the context of climate change/damaging the environment is the time span. Studies have shown the most effective strategy over a long time-span is a generally altruistic approach which reciprocates bad behavior immediately afterwards but then reverts to altruism. But we're only around for the immediate short-term on earth so that strategy isn't the most effective for humans who want to gain power/wealth - you'd have to convince them to imagine they were going to live to 500 or something.

[Johnny Brown]

it strikes me as a bit grandiose if they really think their individual actions, even collectively,  have any bearing on anything so massively complex and gigantic as a planet's 'system'.

But they do - otherwise we wouldn't have a climate change problem or dead seas. Nothing is going on other than individuals making decisions, more's the pity.

[slackline]

I wouldn't say I'm blind to how humans behave, more that I'm probably (grossly) misguided in hoping that individuals can change and develop a longer term view which is considerate to others.

However distasteful it may be to us armchair intellectuals, Slopers assertion that market forces will be the primary drive behind change, is probably correct.

Market forces do drive change and stimulate innovation, which is the point of this thread, and its confusing to at the same time assert that resources are infinite, because if the latter were true there wouldn't be any variation in the market or need for innovation. 

[petejh]

I think Sloper was arguing that our potential for innovation, discovering new types of resources, and thinking up new uses for current resources is 'infinite'. Rather than a single current, and soon (in the next 100 years) to be outdated resource, i.e. oil.

I've posted it here before but one rebuttal to Sloper's argument for us having infinite potential for innovation and getting out of tight squeezes is this: https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

[i.munro]

I've posted it here before but one rebuttal to Sloper's argument for us having infinite potential for innovation and getting out of tight squeezes is this: https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

Interesting post,

[slackline]

I think Sloper was arguing that our potential for innovation, discovering new types of resources, and thinking up new uses for current resources is 'infinite'. Rather than a single current, and soon (in the next 100 years) to be outdated resource, i.e. oil.

I expect so and thats what I interpreted was the point trying to be made, but it wasn't written in a cogent manner and was splattered with petty digs at harmless watermelons which made it hard to take any of it seriously as it just read like a claret-fuelled rant unlike the Energry Trap piece you've linked to which was an interesting read, thanks.

[Jaspersharpe]

Never forget that half of what Sloper writes is pure trolling. The other half being ill informed Tory nonsense.

[a dense loner]

Pete that's an interesting post to tell us how little you have. I have 11 pairs of jeans all pretty much the same shade. I've got 15 pairs of footwear, inc shoes, trainers. I've got more climbing shoes than Stubbs. All in all hoorah for me. Now who's the good guy? You for having little so looking after yourself and not contributing to society in monetary terms, or me for paying over the odds for the shit I've got and paying someone's wages, tax etc at every turn?
Obviously I realise that most of your cash is in stocks or other such stuff.
On the other hand who's the bad guy here? Dolph has done very nearly every prob above 8a in Britain, he's drove to all these places, some multiple times. I drive to the works, 1 mins walk away, and drink coffee. Well fuck my ozone.
We only need two people to discuss anything on here, slackers and sloper since whatever is being talked about the answer will be pretty much exactly between both their opinions.

[Oldmanmatt]

Pete that's an interesting post to tell us how little you have. I have 11 pairs of jeans all pretty much the same shade. I've got 15 pairs of footwear, inc shoes, trainers. I've got more climbing shoes than Stubbs. All in all hoorah for me. Now who's the good guy? You for having little so looking after yourself and not contributing to society in monetary terms, or me for paying over the odds for the shit I've got and paying someone's wages, tax etc at every turn?
Obviously I realise that most of your cash is in stocks or other such stuff.
On the other hand who's the bad guy here? Dolph has done very nearly every prob above 8a in Britain, he's drove to all these places, some multiple times. I drive to the works, 1 mins walk away, and drink coffee. Well fuck my ozone.
We only need two people to discuss anything on here, slackers and sloper since whatever is being talked about the answer will be pretty much exactly between both their opinions.

😜😆😆

[i.munro]

Never forget that half of what Sloper writes is pure trolling. The other half being ill informed Tory nonsense.

Is there a way of telling the difference ?

[Oldmanmatt]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122722654497346099
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23723385
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_321960.pdf

In partial rebuttal to the "Do the Math" article.

And the comments in that article are also telling, vis-a-vis Nuclear...

I'd also point you at the Catalytic production of Hydrocarbons from sea water (mentioned in the Science thread on here), which is quite real, very promising.

Then there's Graphene...

Before opening the climbing wall, I was consultant Engineer on the design of CMC Marine systems, where we achieved a 50% reduction in power consumption across a range of Electrical equipment (manoeuvring) which increased the range of the vessels we fitted out by 25%. When I left, they were scaling up the tech for main propulsion applications. We sold them mainly to rich yachties, because they would pay and that funded our research (carried out in conjunction with Milano and Genova Uni's).
http://www.cmcmarine.com

The potential to provide propulsion at 50% greater efficacy and reduce fuel consumption accordingly! alters EROEI for the remaining fossil fuels dramatically.

I really don't think we're done yet.

Nobody has mentioned overpopulation of the planet yet.

Surely that is of greater threat to our environment and standard of living than a potential energy crisis?

Anybody want to kick off the list of who should be bumped off? Sterilised?

Sloper?

No?

It sucks, because that is our biggest problem and a far thornier branch than energy.

[petejh]

Pete that's an interesting post to tell us how little you have.

Yeah that was undoubtedly the main point of my post wasn't it Dense.

On the other hand who's the bad guy here?

I don't know? Could it be you for emitting so much hot air?

[petejh]

Anybody want to kick off the list of who should be bumped off? Sterilised?

How about the Man City squad, as long as it can be done before the weekend?

Sloper?

Who'd fight for the cause i.e. our no-win no fee whiplash claims?

Good to see household energy consumption decreasing. A drop in the (rising) ocean but a welcome one.

[Oldmanmatt]

Good to see household energy consumption decreasing. A drop in the (rising) ocean but a welcome one.

You miss my point, the first article refers to a massive drop in energy consumption in industry, which began in 2009. It was initially attributed to the crisis of 2008, but the drop has been sustained.
This is in part due to advances in tech.

The reason I highlighted my own work (and perhaps should have made clear), is that we were part of Mitsubishi.
They came up with an incredibly efficient motor with stunning ability to monitor and control just about every parameter  possible, we designed the control system/software/mechanical/hydrodynamic systems to give that a commercial platform.
Through the network of companies that operate within Mitsubishi's "authorise developer" circle, that same tech is being re-applied across a range of industrial uses.
We used the Stabiliser system (much like the control surfaces of an aircraft) to develop the tech because it is an incredibly complex task (the predictive/learning nature of the software is mind boggling). Oscillating equipment in a high stress environment with loads in the Mega Newton range, driving against nothing more than a mechanical linkage and an electrical field? An application previously only possible using the  incompressibility of hydraulic fluids and absolute physical boundaries (valves/positive displacement pumps)?

Straight forward rotational drives are a doddle.
(They're not, scale is a massive problem, as is convincing customers to try something new, as is power generation (producing Mega watts for propulsion as apposed to Kw for stabilisation) and then there's resonance between paired rotating assemblies and.....).
The fuel cell tech/batteries are rapidly catching up and once they cross to the Mega watt range, in a small enough package, power consumption will plummet globally.
Across industry.
Our oscillating tech has already been licensed to a few producers of production line equipment and automation systems...


 

[petejh]

No I did get the point about industry energy consumption but my reply didn't reflect that. - although didn't appreciate the tech involved in your new control system's application across industry. Sounds amazing!

Did you do an EROEI comparison on a piece of process equipment using the new tech versus old tech? How does that affect the point on annual EROEI in the energy trap piece?

You should read this piece on energy efficiency (and the whole piece about economic growth):

Squeezing Efficiency: Rabbits out of the Hat
It seems clear that we could, in principle, rely on efficiency alone to allow continued economic growth even given a no-growth raw energy future (as is inevitable). The idea is simple. Each year, efficiency improvements allow us to drive further, light more homes, manufacture more goods than the year before—all on a fixed energy income. Fortunately, market forces favor greater efficiency, so that we have enjoyed the fruits of a constant drum-beat toward higher efficiency over time. To the extent that we could continue this trick forever, we could maintain economic growth indefinitely, and all the institutions that are built around it: investment, loans, banks, etc.

But how many times can we pull a rabbit out of the efficiency hat? Barring perpetual motion machines (fantasy) and heat pumps (real; discussed below), we must always settle for an efficiency less than 100%. This puts a bound on how much gain we might expect to accomplish. For instance, if some device starts out at 50% efficiency, there is no way to squeeze more than a factor of two out of its performance. To get a handle on how much there is to gain, and how fast we might expect to saturate, let’s look at what we have accomplished historically.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

[petejh]

Meant to type 'did you do a power consumption comparision'.

[Oldmanmatt]

No, I started building a climbing wall and apart from the odd debate on here, I spend far more time worrying about who's going to instruct that group of Brownies (read "Young Offenders") or Chinese language students (read "constructively difficult").
So really not current...
Just more optimistic perhaps?

The aim amongst my colleagues in renewables was to drop consumption to meet rising delivery by renewables and they seemed fairly confident (given the multitude of approaches (Bio luminescent  lighting etc)).
I'm willing to concede, that as an Engineer, I might be overconfident in mankind's  ingenuity. And I don't imagine a smooth ride into the future, nor do I see any imminent end to inequality or suffering.
Given the number of UKIP signs in widows and Gardens around Torbay, I suspect we're all doomed!

[Oldmanmatt]

No, I started building a climbing wall and apart from the odd debate on here, I spend far more time worrying about who's going to instruct that group of Brownies (read "Young Offenders") or Chinese language students (read "constructively difficult").
So really not current...
Just more optimistic perhaps?

The aim amongst my colleagues in renewables was to drop consumption to meet rising delivery by renewables and they seemed fairly confident (given the multitude of approaches (Bio luminescent  lighting etc)).
I'm willing to concede, that as an Engineer, I might be overconfident in mankind's  ingenuity. And I don't imagine a smooth ride into the future, nor do I see any imminent end to inequality or suffering.
Given the number of UKIP signs in widows and Gardens around Torbay, I suspect we're all doomed!