Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[PixyMisa]

No, no you didn't. You just kept falling back on the "logic of abundance", as the Grand Archdruid puts it. Anything that can't be produced locally will have to be given up as shipping is too expensive, well, for the common man at least.

Wrong. Check your history.

YES THEY ARE. LEDs require electricity, candles don't. Win for candles. Candles are only more expensive now because of labor costs.

Wrong.

In an energy scarce setting, human labor will be abundant

Wrong.

and cheap if you have slaves available.

Anyway, your entire argument is wrong. LEDs require less energy to manufacture and to operate than do candles.

 

[TFian]

It's true. Just like me disagreeing with you doesn't make you a racist. It's your racism that makes you a racist. Me disagreeing with you just makes me not a racist.

I'm a racist no doubt (and proud of it), but that has nothing to do with John Michael Greer.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm a racist no doubt (and proud of it).

And innumerate. Don't forget innumerate!

 

[excaza]

YES THEY ARE. LEDs require electricity, candles don't. Win for candles. Candles are only more expensive now because of labor costs.

You are purposely reasoning yourself into this dimwit corner, and ignoring everything (reality, for example) that disagrees with what you think will happen. This is not an intelligent way to debate.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm inclined to (somewhat) agree. I don't think he's as crankish as TFian, but he clearly holds some really crazy beliefs. He's also completely wrong on most things regarding technology and physics. He's also evidently fairly new age, (but as myraid pointed out, his belief in "magic" may just be metaphorical..) and is a leader of a religion of well..new agers. Still, he at least seems more reasonable than TFian.

I think Greer's willful ignorance/denialism of reality and science is enough to label him a crank.


I agree that he appears more reasonable than our beloved aforementioned forum member, however.

 

[ben m]

YES THEY ARE. LEDs require electricity, candles don't. Win for candles.

You don't understand energy at all, do you? Energy can be converted from one form to another.

Candles are only more expensive now because of labor costs. In an energy scarce setting,

HOW energy scarce? Numbers matter.

You seemed to have formulated your agrarian ideas when you thought (a) installed hydropower was far below 20% of 2010 use, and (b) hydropower couldn't possibly be maintained and repaired without fossils. Both of those are wrong, and if your ideas actually relate to energy then facts about energy should matter to you. If your future-vision is the same whether we start from from 1TW hydropower (as we do) or from negligible hydropower (as you assumed when you formulated it) then you're not actually thinking about energy, are you?

human labor will be abundant,

Human labor can be used to build generators just as well as it can be used to dip candles.

You know what? Forget it. If you're proud to be an innumerate racist, please take it all the way. Just give up on the energy-arguments and say "I'm proud to be an innumerate racist, and I'm proud that my agro-utopian ranting is unencumbered by facts". You and Pol Pot have a lot to talk about.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

And innumerate. Don't forget innumerate!

And just insane..add that too!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I think Greer's willful ignorance/denialism of reality and science is enough to label him a crank.

Yeah, I'm guessing he deep down finds "Industrial Civilization" repugnant, and like other peak oilers, is just seeing what he wants to see. He doesn't admit it, but I'm sure he's a practiced Luddite in desire. That would make him rather crankish.

 

[TFian]

And innumerate. Don't forget innumerate!

Another for the stock...

 

[TFian]

You don't understand energy at all, do you? Energy can be converted from one form to another.

Yes, I know.

HOW energy scarce? Numbers matter.

You want exact numbers? Why didn't you ask before?

then you're not actually thinking about energy, are you?

I am talking energy (among other things), and yes, energy facts do matter to me.

Human labor can be used to build generators just as well as it can be used to dip candles.

Yes, I know. It's a matter of "will they do it". All those workers have to be paid, fed, housed, etc. Rather expensive, unless you use free labor (slaves).

You and Pol Pot have a lot to talk about.

Meh, I prefer Ted Kaczynski and John Zerzan.

Also what "Agroutopia", I'm not promoting any Utopia.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Another for the stock...

What stock?

 

[TFian]

HOW energy scarce? Numbers matter.

Probably not much more than what traditional windmills can muster out.

You know what? Forget it. If you're proud to be an innumerate racist, please take it all the way. Just give up on the energy-arguments and say "I'm proud to be an innumerate racist, and I'm proud that my agro-utopian ranting is unencumbered by facts". You and Pol Pot have a lot to talk about.

What does me being a racist have to do with it?

 

[TFian]

What stock?

Ignore list.

 

[Mashuna]

Probably not much more than what traditional windmills can muster out.



What does me being a racist have to do with it?

Well, if you're just ignorant of basic facts, and don't understand the numbers, people will generally make the effort to engage with you and explain where you're going wrong. When you're a self-confessed racist too, you can't really expect people to waste much time on you.

 

[TFian]

Well, if you're just ignorant of basic facts, and don't understand the numbers, people will generally make the effort to engage with you and explain where you're going wrong. When you're a self-confessed racist too, you can't really expect people to waste much time on you.

Of course, that still has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and also ignores the rule of focusing on the argument, rather than the individual making the argument, but *shrugs*, what can you do about em? Either engage in the argument, or simply leave (or go into my ignore list, either way works for me)

 

[soylent]

Because the cost will still be exorbitant to ship things.

I don't think so.

Container-ships are extraordinarly efficient and can be powered directly by nuclear energy. Drag is proportional to the cube of speed; going half speed reduces energy consumer per tonne*km by a factor of 4.

Rail is not as efficient as container-ships, but it's still about an order of magnitude more energy efficient than a truck and it can be electrified. About half of European railways are electrified because we don't levy punitive property taxes on electrified rail. Slow down you get major fuel savings for the same journey.

Electric cranes and a system of electrified cargo trams(when needed) move the containers between ports and railway stations.

The last handful of miles can be handled with electrified cargo trams, which also can be electrified. Tram lines can accomodate both passenger trams and cargo trams.

Candles can be locally produced though, computers can not.

Only nobles could afford candles.

Candle wax is not a fuel though, and is abundant.

What nonsense. Candles are made from either a fuel(e.g. beeswax, or paraffin from petroleum) or a food(e.g. beef tallow, palm oil). Candles used to be expensive; the poor subsistence farmers could not afford candles on any kind of regular basis and were neither literate, nor did they have time for reading.

Candles are so impractical that it was cheaper to sail great distances to hunt for sperm whales; whose fat could be made into fuel for an oil lamp.

LEDs are energy intensive.

Now you've completely gone off the deep end.

A single, small candle uses ~100 W of portable fuel(that could be converted to electricity with a gas turbine at ~30% efficiency), where as a white LED with the same light output, none of the safety hazzard of flicker, uses a few
tenths of a watt of electricity.

That's not even mentioning the amount of time and energy wasted in the candle making process.

I believe in using horses to revive public transit like in Ireland yes, and for agriculture.

Mechanical farming is more efficient than horses(thanks in large part because it consumes no energy when it is idle). If you insist on electrification of farming implement being impossible they can use a gasifier operated on pelletized crop wastes/wood chips or some syn fuel from crop wastes/wood chips.

 

[soylent]

human labor will be abundant, and cheap if you have slaves available.

There is very little surplus labour that can go into anything other than sustenance in a subsistence farming society. Unless you happen to be a knight, noble, church or other parasite who can steal what little surplus the poor farmers generate you will only rarely use a luxury item like a candle. You will not have access to a wellmade beeswax candle; you'll have to use a rushlight or tallow based candle.

 

[soylent]

Probably not much more than what traditional windmills can muster out.

According to the EIA hydro power in the US provide 2.7 EJ. If you take that as a base line, being extremely pessimistic on all other sources of energy. That's 290 watts per person on average. If only 20% of this is consumed in residential consumption, with the rest of the 80% being consumed by industry and shipping, that still leaves 54 W/person on average(you can use more in spurts, as long as everyone doesn't try to do it at the same time); 216 W in a family of two adults and 2 children.

What can you do with 216 W? 0.2 W gives you more light than a candle using a LED; 5 W allows you to light up a small room to a tolerable brightness level. A few watts is enough to power the speakers of a small radio. ~1 watt allows you to have a smart phone(peak power consumption is a few watts, but you'll only be playing 3d games, using the GPS map or taking videos a small fraction of the time). A soldering iron consumes ~25 W; if you spend 2 hours per month soldering that comes to ~0.04 W average. A sowing machine consumes 100 W; if you spend 2 hours per month repairing clothes that's 0.14 W on average. 15 W average power allows you to run a 2500 W washing machine twice a month(this needs to be coordinated so that it doesn't overload the grid, for example by having only one washing machine, shared by many people). Letting a 50 W fan run 6 hours per day in the afternoon consumes 13 W on average(hydro can handle this gentle peak in consumption; many hydroelectric plants have a reservoir). There may even be room in the power budget for a small television and a small, well-insulated refrigerator if there's no access to an earth-cellar.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Ya know, if I have enough energy for a comfortable, albeit small dwelling (an energy efficient pre fabbed home would do nicely for me), healthy food, modern medical care, electric rail, and some modest electronic entertainment (small tv, Nintendo Wii), I would be fine, and still living far beyond a subsistence farmer. Given some of the pre fabbed homes I speak of generate all of their own electricity through purely renewable means, I'm guessing it's very possible to do now.

 

[Roboramma]

You're wrong, we showed you the numbers already.

No they didn't.

I think you failed to read this post, TFian:

Right now, huge numbers of people are willing to pay $600 for an iPad, or $200 for an iPhone, and $80 a month to run it.

Let's say, hypothetically, that the only way to get an iPhone from the factory (Asia) to the US (West Coast ports) was by luxury sailboat. Such a yacht can be rented (and crewed!) for under $3000/week, and can cross the Pacific in 6 weeks. So the cost of a Pacific yacht delivery voyage is $18,000. You could easily (i.e. without thinking twice or retrofitting the boat or anything) carry 1000 iPads and 1000 iPhones on such a boat; the street value of this cargo is about $800,000.

The shipping problem---which you said was impossible, which you said makes computers inferior to horses---only added 18/800, or 2%, to the cost of an iPhone or iPad.

Then let's deliver these iPhones and iPads cross country by horse. Let's value a horse at $3000/yr and pay the rider $100/day; we'll let the horse go from LA to Albuquerque (800mi) at an easy 40 miles/day, so that's a $2100 delivery job. Maybe the horse can carry 60 lbs of cargo---that's 460 iPhones, worth about $100,000, or 38 iPads, worth $22,000.

So horseback delivery of iPads to the middle of nowhere, with no optimization at all, adds about 10% to their cost. Add that to the 2% we paid (overpaid!) for the yacht and ... well, I'm not seeing where 99% of the world is shut out of computer ownership by this 12% delivery fee.

I repeat: computers are small, inexpensive to make and deliver, and valuable.