Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Garrison0fMars]

Ok, point taken. However, the construction and power needs are inextricably linked with computers after all (Without computers, there can be no Internet) There are plenty of members of the geek subculture who consider the future I've discussed appallingly low tech because it doesn't have room for computers. (I don't think it'll be possible to manufacture and maintain them with the technology and resource base of the deindustrial era.) My working guess is that we'll bottom out a couple of centuries from now somewhere around 18th century technology, and then move from there in new directions in regards to communication technologies.

But, if there's a relatively low-tech, sustainable way to make some sort of workable computing machine that uses less energy and produces better results than a trained human being with a slide rule, that may very well stick around...but my money's on the slide rule.

Are you seriously suggesting a slide rule produces better results than a laptop that is powered by a handcrank? I hope you don't bet any real money based on that very keen intuition of yours...

 

[TFian]

Are you seriously suggesting a slide rule produces better results than a laptop that is powered by a handcrank? I hope you don't bet any real money based on that very keen intuition of yours...

No, I'm saying it's a better return on investment energy wise.

Show me a low energy way to A.) Find all the rare earths computing devices require B.) Show me how to mine, harvest and otherwise procure without abundant fossil fuels. C.) how to run these chip fabs without fossil fuels D.) harvest all the scarce resources for the monitors without fossil fuels E.) transport the computers around the world.

No one's addressed this yet in the thread. How will we MAKE these computers in a post peak world?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We have more than enough computer components to salvage already, so that won't be a worry for a long while.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

We have more than enough computer components to salvage already, so that won't be a worry for a long while.

I can buy an original Xbox off ebay for about 30 USD and create an entire PC out of it http://www.crn.com/news/channel-pro...;jsessionid=ewdBm1djkDHo8PkJNuudqg**.ecappj01

We're simply swimming in the parts, no reason we'd not put them to use even *if* we couldn't produce anymore.

 

[ben m]

No, I'm saying it's a better return on investment energy wise.

Show me a low energy way to A.) Find all the rare earths computing devices require B.) Show me how to mine, harvest and otherwise procure without abundant fossil fuels. C.) how to run these chip fabs without fossil fuels D.) harvest all the scarce resources for the monitors without fossil fuels E.) transport the computers around the world.

No one's addressed this yet in the thread. How will we MAKE these computers in a post peak world?

Um. We had, like, ten pages of discussion of exactly this point.

Computers don't take that much power to make. They don't take that much materials. A tiny, tiny fraction of already-existing renewable infrastructure (hydro, geothermal, solar) would be sufficient to run future fabs, and that's true as a profit-loss calculation as well as a simple power budget. Shipping is trivial because computers are very small.

We gave you numbers on each of these points. Power, renewables, shipping, and profit-motivation. We can do materials next if you insist, but first please click back ten pages in this thread and reread it.

 

[ben m]

I also want to point out: Rare earths? For computers? Not a bit of it. Rare earths are used for color applications---CRT phosphors, some colored LEDs---but otherwise have nothing whatsoever to do with the innards of a computer. Not the silicon, not the solder, not the dopants, not the interconnects, not the motherboard, etc.

The current push for rare-earths is driven by high-end permanent magnet motors---nowadays used in electric cars, wind turbines, and (say) hard drives, but you can do without them. You can do all of these things with AlNiCo, a perfectly fine permanent magnet. (You just need 2x as much volume of it to do the job of an NdFeB.)

For a device like an iPhone, with no hard drive, I bet that the only rare earths in the whole thing are in the speaker magnets. Will high-quality earbud speakers survive energy contraction?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Ok, point taken. However, the construction and power needs are inextricably linked with computers after all (Without computers, there can be no Internet) There are plenty of members of the geek subculture who consider the future I've discussed appallingly low tech because it doesn't have room for computers. (I don't think it'll be possible to manufacture and maintain them with the technology and resource base of the deindustrial era.) My working guess is that we'll bottom out a couple of centuries from now somewhere around 18th century technology, and then move from there in new directions in regards to communication technologies.

That might be your guess but you've been repeatedly shown evidence that you are simply wrong. Computers are far more efficient than almost every other type of machine we could imagine for the tasks that they do.

But, if there's a relatively low-tech, sustainable way to make some sort of workable computing machine that uses less energy and produces better results than a trained human being with a slide rule, that may very well stick around...but my money's on the slide rule.

A person with a hand cranked generator and a small netbook computer is BILLIONS of times more efficient than a sliderule in terms of pure calculations. In addition it can do many things that a sliderule cannot.

This is obviously a religious thing for you. What would possibly ever change your mind about this? Seriously, name one thing that would change your mind. I think you're being very obtuse when people have repeatedly shown you how silly your thoughts are here.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Did I kill this thread or what?

 

[excaza]

This thread has been dead for almost 2 months.

It struggled and then kicked the bucket here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6462548&postcount=1161

 

[TFian]

Did I kill this thread or what?

No, I just go periods without responding because I get busy.

Tis the holiday season, so family keeps me busy (along with finals)

 

[TFian]

We gave you numbers on each of these points. Power, renewables, shipping, and profit-motivation. We can do materials next if you insist, but first please click back ten pages in this thread and reread it.

Yes, but they don't take into account materials used, extracted, how scarce they are, or their environmental impact. I would like to discuss them though, so I'll do so in the next post.

 

[TFian]

I also want to point out: Rare earths? For computers? Not a bit of it. Rare earths are used for color applications---CRT phosphors, some colored LEDs---but otherwise have nothing whatsoever to do with the innards of a computer. Not the silicon, not the solder, not the dopants, not the interconnects, not the motherboard, etc.

The current push for rare-earths is driven by high-end permanent magnet motors---nowadays used in electric cars, wind turbines, and (say) hard drives, but you can do without them. You can do all of these things with AlNiCo, a perfectly fine permanent magnet. (You just need 2x as much volume of it to do the job of an NdFeB.)

You can do without harddrives in regards to a computer? How would you store data then?

But let's go through all the materials needed to make a computer.

Silicon
Copper (which is peaking)
Plastics (which need fossil fuels to produce)
Germanium
Silver
Insulators
Tin
Lead
Gadolinium
Dysprosium

And some more I'd imagine, depending on the device.

How will we extract and utilize these materials to build portable computers without large amounts of fossil fuels, and how will their supplies remain constant, when many of them are peaking?

 

[TFian]

Computers are far more efficient than almost every other type of machine we could imagine for the tasks that they do.

But at what cost?

In addition it can do many things that a sliderule cannot.

But are those things needed?

This is obviously a religious thing for you. What would possibly ever change your mind about this? Seriously, name one thing that would change your mind. I think you're being very obtuse when people have repeatedly shown you how silly your thoughts are here.

I'm not sure really how to answer this question, but I'll try.

Name you one thing? Well, I'd like to see someone successfully build the core components of a computer with only the use of renewable energy without petro feedstocks. I'd certainly change my mind then. At least on computers.

 

[excaza]

But let's go through all the materials needed to make a computer.

Again?

Silicon

As pointed out to you before, it's sand.

Copper (which is peaking)

It's not absolutely necessary, aluminum can be used, but isn't, because copper has better material properties.

Plastics (which need fossil fuels to produce)

Used for housings and isn't necessary. Build the case out of wood.

Germanium

Is used to dope silicon to give better performance, but isn't necessary.

Silver

Normally used in keyboards, but isn't necessary, any conducting material would suffice.

Insulators

I tried looking up 'Insulators' on the periodic table, but couldn't find anything.

Gadolinium

Not used in a computer.

Dysprosium

Also not used in a computer.

You're not doing too well.

How will we extract and utilize these materials to build portable computers without large amounts of fossil fuels, and how will their supplies remain constant, when many of them are peaking?

Including tin and lead, the same way these materials were extracted before fossil fuels. As for processing, it requires energy, there are other sources of energy besides fossil fuels, as much as you want to try to ignore them.

You can do without harddrives in regards to a computer? How would you store data then?

Even if we were to somehow run out of magnets before the sun exploded, we could just use SSDs. Or some other technology that would get developed to address the need, because that's how technology works.

 

[excaza]

Also, regarding silicon, less than 10% (I actually think it's closer to 5%) of the world's silicon goes into electronics, most of it goes into alloying metals and the various silicone products. So if we're hand-wringing about silicon (which I've pointed out before is the most abundant element on Earth, after oxygen), we have bigger issues than computers.

 

[ben m]

Even if we were to somehow run out of magnets before the sun exploded, we could just use SSDs. Or some other technology that would get developed to address the need, because that's how technology works.

I said: you don't need rare earth magnets to make a hard drive at all. You need rare earth magnets to make the motor more compact. You can fit a terabyte drive in your pocket today because (a) the storage medium has improved so much and (b) the motor has shrunk to about the size of a Sacajawea dollar. The latter is thanks to rare earths.

Take away the rare earths and you have to go back to AlNiCo (all very common elements) which would mean that the motor is the size of a walnut.

 

[excaza]

Which is why I said 'magnets' instead of 'rare earth magnets'

 

[Mark6]

This is obviously a religious thing for you.

Are you saying you just noticed that?

What would possibly ever change your mind about this? Seriously, name one thing that would change your mind. I think you're being very obtuse when people have repeatedly shown you how silly your thoughts are here.

 

[TFian]

Are you saying you just noticed that?

Not any less religious than the religion of technofantasism is for you.

The myth of progress. Ever changing, ever forward. Must be a nice delusion.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Not any less religious than the religion of technofantasism is for you.

The myth of progress. Ever changing, ever forward. Must be a nice delusion.

Why is it with you it's either infinite progression or infinite regression? It seems to me the idea that society can and does regress to something nearly identical to the past is just as much a myth and fallacy as "forever progress".

Also, I might add that "progress" has been happening since the dawn of our species. Isn't it a bit arrogant to proclaim that all of a sudden it'll die now?