The downside of dependence

[TFian]

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

Another thing I wanted to point out here was that just because he "hand built" that computer doesn't mean the parts itself were hand built, and it's doubtful those parts could be fashioned in a post peak world. This is why, for example, I (and John Michael Greer) have made the claim that the internet is not going to make it very far into the post-abundance future. To keep the internet up and running takes a vastly complex technological structure, ranging from gigawatts of electricity from centralized power plants, through silicon chip factories and their supporting industries and supply chains, to universities that can train people in the wide range of exotic specialties that keep the net functioning. It also requires an economic system complex and rich enough that the internet can pay its bills and outcompete other ways of providing the services that net users actually use. None of those are guaranteed, and in a world facing energy shortages, economic contraction, and attendant social and political disruption, the chances that today’s faltering industrial societies can maintain the technological and economic foundation for the internet look very slim.

 

[TFian]

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.

With the help of abundant fossil fuels...

 

[TFian]

All you need to do is feed a mass of throrium-flouride salts into a steel vessel.

Which requires lots of fossil fuels to fashion...

Use a synchrotron or cyclotron to fire neutrons into a spallation target just inside the vessel

Devices such as synchrontron's are massive which require abundant fossil fuel to create...

(a technique developed in the 1930s)

An era of abundant fossil fuels...

 

[lionking]

You keep on asserting that the world is facing energy shortages, ever increasing population and economic collapse when so many have refuted these assertions compellingly. Ignoring evidence that you are wrong a few times one can put down to laziness or reading comprehension problems. Continually doing so points to dishonesty.

 

[Thunder]

Ignoring evidence that you are wrong a few times one can put down to laziness or reading comprehension problems.

irony.

now, is this thread about Americans being too dependent on govt?

 

[lionking]

irony.

now, is this thread about Americans being too dependent on govt?

Never mind. Not worth the effort.

 

[Thunder]

Off topic comments and attempting to derail a thread. Good show

I'm asking an honest question. I find the OP a bit confusing, and I'm not sure where the conversation is now.

Would you be my friend and inform me about where the conversation is?

 

[TFian]

irony.

now, is this thread about Americans being too dependent on govt?

Partially yes, read the link in the OP to get the full picture.

 

[TFian]

You keep on asserting that the world is facing energy shortages, ever increasing population and economic collapse when so many have refuted these assertions compellingly. Ignoring evidence that you are wrong a few times one can put down to laziness or reading comprehension problems. Continually doing so points to dishonesty.

I've addressed all those point, no dishonesty here. Got anything specific I can respond to directly. Do you deny world petroleum supply (the lifeblood of industrial civilization) is peaking?

 

[Thunder]

yeah, I agree that we should learn to use less, save more, conserve more, etc etc.

our current lifestyle...or should I say...our lifestyle as of 2007.....will not last forever.

 

[lionking]

I've addressed all those point, no dishonesty here. Got anything specific I can respond to directly. Do you deny world petroleum supply (the lifeblood of industrial civilization) is peaking?

No you haven't. You kept on asserting that the world's population will continue to grow when it will peak in less than 50 years, you talk about energy shortages when posters have proven that there's enough uranium to last just about forever. You keep on quoting this druid when his nonsense has been exposed. You are carrying on a monologue and simply ignoring inconvenient facts.

 

[Thunder]

you talk about energy shortages when posters have proven that there's enough uranium to last just about forever.

ah yes, nuclear power.

the clean, safe energy of the 20th century.

until....BOOOOM!!!! Chernobyl.

or BOOOOM!!!!!! Fukoshima.

relying on nuclear energy to supply all the world's electricity needs, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[TFian]

No you haven't. You kept on asserting that the world's population will continue to grow when it will peak in less than 50 years, you talk about energy shortages when posters have proven that there's enough uranium to last just about forever. You keep on quoting this druid when his nonsense has been exposed. You are carrying on a monologue and simply ignoring inconvenient facts.

I've addressed all those. Nuclear is simply not possible without the energy & capital that fossil fuels bring forth. How would we build the equipment without such abundant energy sources?

Uranium in the traditionally used sense is indeed peaking. There's Thorium sure, but can easily be classed as "Vaporware", given it's such an immature and untested (in any large scale) technology.

What inconvenient facts am I ignoring?

 

[lionking]

ah yes, nuclear power.

the clean, safe energy of the 20th century.

until....BOOOOM!!!! Chernobyl.

or BOOOOM!!!!!! Fukoshima.

relying on nuclear energy to supply all the world's electricity needs, is a recipe for disaster.

It would help if you knew what this thread is about and the nature of Tfian's claims. Like civilization collapsing in a handful of years, and energy running out. In the absence of this knowledge your post is just silly.

 

[TFian]

It would help if you knew what this thread is about and the nature of Tfian's claims. Like civilization collapsing in a handful of years, and energy running out. In the absence of this knowledge your post is just silly.

Well given I am not saying civilization will collapse in a handful of years, you're looking quite silly.

 

[lionking]

I've addressed all those. Nuclear is simply not possible without the energy & capital that fossil fuels bring forth. How would we build the equipment without such abundant energy sources?

Uranium in the traditionally used sense is indeed peaking. There's Thorium sure, but can easily be classed as "Vaporware", given it's such an immature and untested (in any large scale) technology.

What inconvenient facts am I ignoring?

You are wrong (still).

 

[TFian]

You are wrong (still).

Well that's enlightening

 

[lionking]

Well given I am not saying civilization will collapse in a handful of years, you're looking quite silly.

Depends on the definition of handful I suppose. When will the collapse happen again?

ETA your guru says it will happen in the not too distant future. When?

My prediction? It's not going to happen.

 

[TFian]

Depends on the definition of handful I suppose. When will the collapse happen again?

There won't be a collapse, but a long descent. Please at least understand what I'm saying. If you ever are confused, I can easily explain.

 

[lionking]

There won't be a collapse, but a long descent. Please at least understand what I'm saying. If you ever are confused, I can easily explain.

As I said in my last post, your guru believes it's going to happen in the near future. Laughable.