Will the internet survive energy contraction?

Dancing David said:
Sort of and sort of not as a scientific hypothesis that groups of organisms can associate to benefit each other, yes. As the wooey mushy, lets all pretend that nature is never capricious and destructive, no.
Click to expand...

Who's said Gaia isn't destructive? It's one vengeful SOB ;)
 
TFian said:
Actually I think his research came to the conclusion about 90% of past civilizations died off from suicide.
Click to expand...

Back up that his methods were at all inclusive, credible and dealt with confounding factors. It was drought what brought down the Mayans.

90% is also the number of angels that wear shoes whne they dance on the head of a pin.
 
TFian said:
I'm well aware of what conservative means in a universal broad sense (in fact, I pretty much described it as such to another user)



http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html
Click to expand...
Quote the direct evidence, that is long article and it is not clear that it says that al all.

"Eventually Easter's growing population was cutting the forest more rapidly than the forest was regenerating. The people used the land for gardens and the wood for fuel, canoes, and houses-and, of course, for lugging statues. As forest disappeared, the islanders ran out of timber and rope to transport and erect their statues. Life became more uncomfortable-springs and streams dried up, and wood was no longer available for fires."

You seem to conflate a lot of ideas. And I scanned that article, it does not say what you seem to have implied.
And what bigotry have I shown? Care to clarify?
Click to expand...

Stupid statues.
 
TFian said:
I don't think you get what I meant there. Yes, of course they work as petroleum based energy sources (albeit more crudely), but their extraction is offset by the environmental cost, which is rather huge, especially with Albertan tar sand extraction. Instead of adapting to other cleaner energy sources, we'll go after the harder, dirtier, and more destructive sources, until we self implode.
Click to expand...

Nice addition to Undemonstrated Assertion pile and , you have no idea how to do economic cost analysis do you? Already the imvestment in wind turbines proves you wrong.
 
Dancing David said:
Quote the direct evidence, that is long article and it is not clear that it says that al all.

"Eventually Easter's growing population was cutting the forest more rapidly than the forest was regenerating. The people used the land for gardens and the wood for fuel, canoes, and houses-and, of course, for lugging statues. As forest disappeared, the islanders ran out of timber and rope to transport and erect their statues. Life became more uncomfortable-springs and streams dried up, and wood was no longer available for fires."

You seem to conflate a lot of ideas. And I scanned that article, it does not say what you seem to have implied.
Click to expand...

What do you think the rapidly deforested tree material was being used for?


Dancing David said:
Stupid statues.
Click to expand...

How is that bigotry? Is mocking religious artifacts now bigotry?
 
Dancing David said:
Nice addition to Undemonstrated Assertion pile and , you have no idea how to do economic cost analysis do you? Already the imvestment in wind turbines proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

So, you don't believe Tar sands are destructive to the environment, and that they are rapidly being sought out and extracted?

Yeah, the "imvestment" is sure impressive into Wind. Too bad it sucks as an energy source.
 
TFian said:
In a matter of speaking, yes.

Can I ask why you think James Lovelock is crazy? After all, his Gaia hypothesis is well respected.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It's not really even a well-formed hypothesis, since it's still - after decades of work - incapable of making specific predictions.
 
I'll try this one: chainsaw versus axes and handsaws, for felling and cutting timber.

As a conservative estimate, one man with a chainsaw can fell and cut timber as fast as ten men using axes and handsaws.

If we're paying a minimum wage of $5.00/hour for the labor, the cost of fueling the chainsaw per hour (about half a gallon of gasoline) must exceed $45.00 to make the axes and saws more efficient.

If gasoline is entirely unavailable, we're still willing to pay that same $90 per gallon for some other fuel that can work, such as kerosene, ethanol, or vegetable oil.

Or, to put it another way, if eight men working full time can maintain the chainsaw (let's say two of them working full time, to make replacement parts as needed and a new chainsaw every five years) and provide fuel for full-time use of the chainsaw (the other six of them, working the fields and distillery), then it's better to have them doing that than to send them and another man out cutting timber full time with axes and handsaws.

Keep in mind that while (depending on how the fuel is being made) the fuel makers might be distributed among the cropland, the chainsaw craftsmen would most likely not be working in a farm shed somewhere but in a town with other craftsmen specializing in chainsaw crafting. This will allow them to invest in machinery of their own, which will eventually do for their productivity what the chainsaws do for woodcutters' productivity. Similarly, the fuel-makers would figure out that using a portion of the fuel they're making to power a tractor would permit them to produce more fuel overall, so a tractor factory-town begins to form a mile or two from the chainsaw place.

The bottom line is: even in a worst-case scenario starting from zero industrial base, chainsaws win.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
TFian said:
What do you think the rapidly deforested tree material was being used for?
Click to expand...
Moving statues is low on the list, therefore you original statement was incorrect.

How is that bigotry? Is mocking religious artifacts now bigotry?
Click to expand...

And how do you know what they were for?

And yes mocking them is bigotry.(if done solely from stereotypes.)
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
So, you don't believe Tar sands are destructive to the environment, and that they are rapidly being sought out and extracted?

Yeah, the "imvestment" is sure impressive into Wind. Too bad it sucks as an energy source.
Click to expand...

You still did not make your point, the fact that people are investing in wind turbines, that refutes your whole rant. When the economic benefit rises in proportion to cost then there will more investment.

You are saying that wind turbines are not viable based upon a growth curve less than ten years old?
 
excaza said:
Yeah, 2 turbines power my entire town. Sure does suck. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As long as the wind is blowing. Problem with renewables is they are intermittent. When the day isn't windy, you aren't going to have any power for your town.
 
TFian said:
It's why they aren't good energy sources. :eek:
Click to expand...

Which is why you don't rely on a single energy source. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectic, and Nuclear power can work together. We don't have to pick just one, you know.

Oh, wait. I forgot about OH NOES!!!!!! PEAK OILE WILL KILL US ALLLLLL!!!!!1111ONE!ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ZirconBlue said:
Which is why you don't rely on a single energy source. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectic, and Nuclear power can work together. We don't have to pick just one, you know.

Oh, wait. I forgot about OH NOES!!!!!! PEAK OILE WILL KILL US ALLLLLL!!!!!1111ONE!ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah but some of the sources you indicated are intermittent, and even used in conjunction, only provide a tiny sliver of what we get out of oil.

Kill us all? Nah, though it'll probably be good if there's a die off in the works.
 
TFian said:
And how do we get around the intermittent problem?
Click to expand...

Flywheels, supercapacitors, pumped hydro, SMES, CAES, molten salts, hydrogen storage, fuel cells, solar ponds, etc.

Or, to put it simply since I'm assuming you're too lazy to look any of those up. Smart grid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom