The downside of dependence

[TFian]

I guarantee you the first thing people will do after civilizational collapse is rebuild their industrial infrastructure.

I have no doubt they will try, but without the necessary energy after peak oil, they will fail, miserably. At best we can hope for a 19th century lifestyle with ecotechnic appropriate technology.

 

[TFian]

Excuse me, I should have said denier.

Denier of what?

Because that stuff is proven to be woo, the Atlantis stuff he wrote about is ridiculous, the man obviously has no grip on reality.

What is ridiculous about his Atlantis "Stuff"? He doesn't even believe it's a real place, he uses it as an allegory for our modern predicament(s).

He supports Sheldrake for FSM's sake. His credibility as a science-minded person is zero.

Are you a believer in scientism?

This obviously does not mean he is incorrect but that's not the point being made. If what the guy does is 95% proven woo than this is an interesting thing to know about why he has gotten this subject so horribly backwards.

Is that not an ad hominem?

His theory of collapse is based on principles he claims to have identified.

What are these principles that you find to be incorrect?

Read the final paragraph, this entire paper is an exercise in speculation and he admits it,

Educated speculation you mean.

it's worth is basically zero and is trumped by the science that has actually been done by the scientists who have devoted their lives to this subject.

In what way does it contradict modern science?

Perhaps a more worthwhile endeavour would be to try and replicate that study for yourself using strict protocols and keeping your methods and data transparent. Perhaps someone will actually take you seriously.

I might do that over the summer break

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have no doubt they will try, but without the necessary energy after peak oil, they will fail, miserably.

Assuming the level of collapse you fantasize about actually occurred, it could still be done as long as our current level of knowledge were preserved.

As I have pointed out over and over again. We could provide all our energy needs for tens of thousands of years with technology from the 1940s. If we preserve that level of knowledge, a leader with the know how and the vision could bring primitive 1st generation nuclear reactors on line easily within a generation.

After which, civilizations comeback would be virtually unstoppable.

 

[Joey McGee]

Denier of what?

The evidence that shows killing billions of people to save the planet would be an insane thing to do, you know, your crackpot idea that we're in that much trouble.

What is ridiculous about his Atlantis "Stuff"? He doesn't even believe it's a real place, he uses it as an allegory for our modern predicament(s).

He's asks if it's a prophecy for our times? It's woo.

Is that not an ad hominem?

We've moved on from making arguments against him, transitioned into hypothesizing about why he's crackers. "He said something I don't like! Must have been an Ad Hom!" Also, ad homs can be correct...

That was like a month ago I don't want to go back and reread that paper. How about you make some claims about the world and it's future using facts and references, that seems worth talking about.

I might do that over the summer break

That might be cool, first I would go read everything ever written on it from both sides, then read everything written about the failed replications, then form your study and before you waste your time, run the methodology by as many scientists as possible. Make sure your data can be independently verified, and it will actually be worth looking into when you're done. Actually, I'm interested in these kinds of studies, just wake me up when you find some proof, it's been hundreds of years and we're still grasping at straws.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

His theory of collapse is based on principles he claims to have identified. Read the final paragraph, this entire paper is an exercise in speculation and he admits it, it's worth is basically zero and is trumped by the science that has actually been done by the scientists who have devoted their lives to this subject.

From what I remember, a big striking point of his "theory" (it's not even been peer reviewed, so can it even constitute a "theory"?) was using the Roman Empire as a model of collapse from energy shortages. Lots of Peak Oilers proclaim that (Rome fell because of energy shortage), but from what I've gathered, there isn't many (or any) credible historians who believe that's even an plausible reason for it's collapse. Thus he's already using fringe unproven models to prove his point to being with...

 

[TFian]

Assuming the level of collapse you fantasize about actually occurred, it could still be done as long as our current level of knowledge were preserved.

As I have pointed out over and over again. We could provide all our energy needs for tens of thousands of years with technology from the 1940s. If we preserve that level of knowledge, a leader with the know how and the vision could bring primitive 1st generation nuclear reactors on line easily within a generation.

After which, civilizations comeback would be virtually unstoppable.

To run a large-scale grid of the sort currently in use, you need to be able to produce huge amounts of power every second of every day. It’s very difficult to get that much power that reliably by any means other than burning a lot of fossil fuels, either directly – say, in a coal- or gas-fired power plant – or indirectly. Tot up the total energy content of the fossil fuels needed to mine and refine uranium and urn it into fuel rods, to build, maintain, and decommission a nuclear reactor, to deal with the short-term and long-term waste, and to account for a share of the energy cost of the inevitable accidents, for example, and you’ll have a sense of the scale of the energy subsidies from fossil fuels that prop up nuclear power, and a similar realization is in store. Lacking these subsidies, it’s probably a safe bet that nuclear reactors can’t be built or maintained at all.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

To run a large-scale grid of the sort currently in use, you need to be able to produce huge amounts of power every second of every day. It’s very difficult to get that much power that reliably by any means other than burning a lot of fossil fuels, either directly – say, in a coal- or gas-fired power plant – or indirectly. Tot up the total energy content of the fossil fuels needed to mine and refine uranium and urn it into fuel rods,

Our hypothetical post-collapse warlord wouldn't need to do any of these things.

All you need to do is feed a mass of throrium-flouride salts into a steel vessel. Use a synchrotron or cyclotron to fire neutrons into a spallation target just inside the vessel (a technique developed in the 1930s) and after a few days, a self-sustaining, self-regulating chain reaction will begin.

to build, maintain, and decommission a nuclear reactor, to deal with the short-term and long-term waste, and to account for a share of the energy cost of the inevitable accidents, for example, and you’ll have a sense of the scale of the energy subsidies from fossil fuels that prop up nuclear power, and a similar realization is in store. Lacking these subsidies, it’s probably a safe bet that nuclear reactors can’t be built or maintained at all.

Our hypothetical post-collapse warlord won't need to do any of these things. Most of the high costs involved with nuclear energy are entirely artificial. Imposed by regulatory agencies and the hoops that nuclear operators must jump through.

Our post-collapse warlord won't have the NRC, (or the CNSC), the DoE or the IAEA looking over his shoulder so he will be able to basically do whatever the @#$% he wants.

This is in fact, the biggest flaw in your collapse fantasy. You assume that our society and its institutions will fall apart from lack of energy. Upon hearing the scientifically proven fact that we have literally millions of years of nuclear fuel available, you hand wave it away chanting "It's too expensive, can't be done. It's too late, we're all going to die, blah blah blah blah..."

It's as though you think that all of our institutions except for the regulatory bodies overseeing nuclear energy will fall apart. That the government will divert its dwindling resources towards making sure that no one does something to save it.

In a liquid fueled thorium reactor, the reaction in the fuel mass is self-regulating. Since the fuel exists in a liquid state, if the temperature increases, the fuel will expand, increasing the distance between atoms in the fuel and reducing the speed, in turn reducing the temperature. This is what makes LFTRs meltdown proof. Your collapse fantasy regulates itself in a similar fashion. As social institutions fail, the regulatory controls that keep people from exploiting resources that were always there go with them.

 

[excaza]

since they are not home made computers...(as such a thing does not exist)

In every thread you try and make this assertion, and it's still completely wrong.

 

[Mark6]

Our hypothetical post-collapse warlord won't need to do any of these things. Most of the high costs involved with nuclear energy are entirely artificial. Imposed by regulatory agencies and the hoops that nuclear operators must jump through.

Our post-collapse warlord won't have the NRC, (or the CNSC), the DoE or the IAEA looking over his shoulder so he will be able to basically do whatever the @#$% he wants.

This is in fact, the biggest flaw in your collapse fantasy. You assume that our society and its institutions will fall apart from lack of energy. Upon hearing the scientifically proven fact that we have literally millions of years of nuclear fuel available, you hand wave it away chanting "It's too expensive, can't be done. It's too late, we're all going to die, blah blah blah blah..."

It's as though you think that all of our institutions except for the regulatory bodies overseeing nuclear energy will fall apart. That the government will divert its dwindling resources towards making sure that no one does something to save it.

Or to put it in even simpler terms:

Nuclear energy is incredibly easy if you have expendable workers. It is quite easy even if your workers are not expendable right away, but do not expect to retire. Which in post-collapse world would be everyone.

 

[stokes234]

France shifted over to nuclear in the space of about 10 years, even with all the regulations. It's hard to see a downside so long as you steer clear of faultlines and don't mind sacrificing an area of desert to bury the waste in.

 

[Joey McGee]

What really is the projected future for nuclear safety? What is a reasonable range to expect for possible disasters? Because it seems like the costs of not using nuclear could justify a meltdown or four, just sayin'. Is there really a nearly foolproof system?

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Because it seems like the costs of not using nuclear could justify a meltdown or four, just sayin'.

Well, it's fair to point out you might not feel that way if your community was the subject of said meltdown (or four). It's always good to keep such perspectives in mind when dealing with cost analysis.

 

[TFian]

In every thread you try and make this assertion, and it's still completely wrong.

And where did he get all the parts to "hand make" this computeR?

 

[TFian]

That was like a month ago I don't want to go back and reread that paper. How about you make some claims about the world and it's future using facts and references, that seems worth talking about.

Sure.

The claim of catabolic collapse is give way too smaller and simpler ones. There's plenty of evidence for this and Greer's theory of catabolic collapse is a concise sensical framework for this idea.

In particular the Roman Empire serves as a prototypical example, for further reading "Grant, M. (1990). The fall of the Roman empire. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson."

Here's a plethora of other good sources http://www.raiazome.com/John_Michael_Greer--How_Civilizations_Fall#footnotes5

 

[Joey McGee]

Sure.

The claim of catabolic collapse is give way too smaller and simpler ones. There's plenty of evidence for this and Greer's theory of catabolic collapse is a concise sensical framework for this idea.

In particular the Roman Empire serves as a prototypical example, for further reading "Grant, M. (1990). The fall of the Roman empire. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson."

Here's a plethora of other good sources http://www.raiazome.com/John_Michael_Greer--How_Civilizations_Fall#footnotes5

ok, those might be good sources, but they are all in some old books that no one here has. One criticism of Greer I came across was from a former follower who said that one if is major problems with him now is all of his resources are from some books from the 70s. That's a pretty potent criticism apparently.

Plus really I still have no idea what is going to happen to our world and why exactly. Please make that argument here in full with references to things like verifiable studies. The Fall of the Roman Empire is not needed to make a case for anything.

ETA: You should be able to write a piece as if you're in the future documenting history. What happened? How would you explain the story in full?

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

One criticism of Greer I came across was from a former follower who said that one if is major problems with him now is all of his resources are from some books from the 70s.

Actually there seems to be a diversity of timedates with the sources, some from the 80s, others from the 60s, one even from the 20s. But this is why we have peer reviewing, so we can make sure those sources are valid and truthful. As of yet, the "Theory" of Catabolic collapse has not been peer reviewed. This doesn't mean it isn't worth addressing, but that the sources provided shouldn't be assumed to be correct in their assumptions.

 

[Joey McGee]

And that's not even the biggest problem, the most important consideration is that you have to tie your theory to real world markers so you can come somewhere close to testing your hypothesis against the data of history. This kind of work is like comparing stories upon stories, which is only a hop, skip and a jump from dealing with the woo of the Tarot and Atlantis and UFOs...

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

And that's not even the biggest problem, the most important consideration is that you have to tie your theory to real world markers so you can come somewhere close to testing your hypothesis against the data of history. This kind of work is like comparing stories upon stories, which is only a hop, skip and a jump from dealing with the woo of the Tarot and Atlantis and UFOs...

What's funny is Greer says at the end something to the effect of "I haven't done the work to justify my model" Uh...? Also, how is this even a theory, not a (very weak) hypothesis?

 

[Roboramma]

Well, it's fair to point out you might not feel that way if your community was the subject of said meltdown (or four). It's always good to keep such perspectives in mind when dealing with cost analysis.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't look at the actual costs of either using nuclear power or not using nuclear power.

It seems to me we are far too prone to looking only at the costs associated with the risk of, for instance, a meltdown, and not looking at the costs associated with not implementing this technology.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't look at the actual costs of either using nuclear power or not using nuclear power.

It seems to me we are far too prone to looking only at the costs associated with the risk of, for instance, a meltdown, and not looking at the costs associated with not implementing this technology.

I agree we should look at the big picture.

But issues of one meltdown (or four) should also be taken into account. Which communities get the short end of the stick and thus, a meltdown? And how will people react after said community is devastated after X meltdown?

I agree we need to keep all our options open, nuclear included, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the risks either.