[The Godfather]

Consider the increasing populace, the dwindling sources of energy, the increasing construction costs, the iPhone becoming your PC and console, the liability of unbalanced diets, and the unrelentless gains in the procrastination index since 1995. Is it too hard to imagine adopting the habits of another advanced societies, into the more frugal, less liable livelihoods of say... the far eastern?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

the far eastern?

Like, Baltimore?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

There is so much solar power available the price may go up but supply is nearly infinite.

[The Godfather]

That assumes that the undeveloped world remains undeveloped.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

There is so much solar power available the price may go up but supply is nearly infinite.

That doesn't mean shit. The solar power can't be harvested economically.
Even the ROEI (return on energy invested) doesn't make sense at current technology.

Solar power will not save us from energy shortfalls and price spikes.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

That assumes that the undeveloped world remains undeveloped.

No I'm assuming the sun isn't going to go out.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That doesn't mean shit. The solar power can't be harvested economically.
Even the ROEI (return on energy invested) doesn't make sense at current technology.

Solar power will not save us from energy shortfalls and price spikes.

-t

You mean economically compared to other sources of energy. Raise the price and suddenly its economical. Oh wait thats exactly what happens to the price when you restrict supply.

As for ROEI once you burn all the fossil fuels there's only 4 choices left. Solar panels may not be the most efficient but they scale like crazy. Whats the ROEI of Hydro if you include the cost of making a river and not just the dam?

[Wiskedjak]

What is this energy shortfall of which you speak? We've been told of unlimited energy supply for almost as long as activists have been telling us that we'd run out of our non-renewable supplies.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

As for ROEI once you burn all the fossil fuels there's only 4 choices left. Solar panels may not be the most efficient but they scale like crazy.

You can't make solar panels without cheap fossil fuels. Period.

Once cheap oil is gone, solar energy is a mere theory.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

What is it in fossil fuels that are required to produce solar panels?

[The Godfather]

It would make sense that the photovoltaic cell factory in china ran on solar power, but does it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

What is it in fossil fuels that are required to produce solar panels?

The energy used to drive manufacturing and for the petroleum-based plastics used in the components of the panels. There is a company touting the use of cotton and beans for creating an alternative to the plastics, but unfortunately the cultivation of cotton requires a great amount of pesticides and fertilizers that are also petroleum-based.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The energy used to drive manufacturing and for the petroleum-based plastics used in the components of the panels. There is a company touting the use of cotton and beans for creating an alternative to the plastics, but unfortunately the cultivation of cotton requires a great amount of pesticides and fertilizers that are also petroleum-based.

So nothing then.

[BadKosh]

Any environmental impact studies on what happens when so much shade is created by the placement of those millions of panels required to replace one coal powered electric plant? What about natural gas? don't we have about 600 years worth in the US?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Seeing as the prime realestate for them is the roofs of millions os homes, the environment has already been impacted.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

What is it in fossil fuels that are required to produce solar panels?

Plastics, as eBuddy said.
Silver (mining is highly fossil fuel dependent)
Silicon

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Plastics, as eBuddy said.
Silver (mining is highly fossil fuel dependent)
Silicon

-t

None of those requires fossil fuels. They just get harder and mode expensive. And you don't need plastic to make solar cells. Especially industrial ones. They prefer metal and glass to plastic casing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

None of those requires fossil fuels. They just get harder and mode expensive.

Oh, I see. So you're going to power all the Caterpillar trucks in the mines with what ?
And all the plants making silicone are going to be run witgh green power ? LOL.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

And you don't need plastic to make solar cells. Especially industrial ones. They prefer metal and glass to plastic casing.

Seriously, do you think making glass and metals is LESS fossil fuel dependant?
Mining and refining metal glass (silicone) is VERY energy intensive.

You ARE aware that currently, 85% of US energy produced is from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Probably, you're not.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

And all the plants making silicone are going to be run witgh green power ?

When there are no fossil fuels left. Yes they will.

o you're going to power all the Caterpillar trucks in the mines with what ?

Batteries or they'll make synthetic fuel if they can't beat the energy storage density.

You ARE aware that currently, 85% of US energy produced is from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Probably, you're not.

Yes I know that. It's irrelevant, were talking about what happens when the fossil fuels run out.

Seriously, do you think making glass and metals is LESS fossil fuel dependent?

There is nothing in the making of glass or refining metals that requires fossil fuels. Most smelters are electric arc now anyways. Sure they're more energy intensive than plastics but it doesn't matter were the energy comes from.

[turtle777]

Catch 22, dude.

There's no way to ramp up all the green power to power making green power.
Plus, like I said, the ROEI doesn't make sense.

Watch this to educate yourself. All that green energy stuff will not be able to replace cheap fossil fuels.

Crash Course Chapter 17b: Energy Budgeting - Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - economics, Energy, EROEI, food energy, growth, net energy, prosperity

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Who said I need to use green power to make green power? I'll just use the last of the fossil fuels and nuclear to make the solar cells. Once the price of fossil fuels is high enough the ROI will make it happen. Any positive ROEI with a positive ROI will do. And as the demand goes up so will R&D and manufacturing efficiencies driving the ROEI and ROI up.

[turtle777]

It's still a chicken-egg problem.

If you use a lot of the current fossil fuels to build up future generation green energy, you'll create shortages today.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but there would be impacts on the consumer.

This is a big problem though: How do you sell a future benefit if it suddenly means huge cost increases for todays consumer ?
You can't. The whole deadlock in Washington shows that this can't be overcome. Therefore, large scale solar implementation will not happen at the desired pace.

There's just so many things wrong with todays solar power industry. Just look at all the solar companies going bust lately. It's crazy.

Solar will NOT save the day.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

The solar companies are going bust because: A. Fossil Fuels are cheaper per/kw. B. The chinese are dumping solars cells to corner a next gen market. ROI is how you sell a future benefit. The government really doesn't have to do anything here but keep the fossil fuel industry from tampering with things. (good luck!)

[Waragainstsleep]

How about when you hit a certain weight, you have to spend X hours a day working it off on a treadmill that powers the national grid? Two problems solved in one.

[ebuddy]

I wish BLAZE had just said; "let's play pretend".

Sure BLAZE. When there are no fossil fuels, we won't use them.



*edited to include: Most smelters are electric arc now anyways. - error

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I'm fairly certain that The Godfather was the one who said "let's pretend."
The issue is what do we use, if anything, to replace them.

[The Godfather]

I never told anyone to pretend. Dwindling energy sources are a fact, because all the world will consume power like it's 1999 by 2099 and you'd need 100 Irans to fuel all of that demand. When your baby is in a retirement home, will she keep the thermostat at 72F in the summer, or will she play bingo outdoors under the solar panel?

[el chupacabra]

The US is land of the wasteful. People don't need all the energy they use. The world has functioned before without oil; used to be wood and coal. Growing up our car used gas but the house was wood powered. The world even mined without oil power back in the day, and they can do it again. But if anyone's worried about it maybe they should advocate to slow down save what oil we have. The current mantra of "drill baby drill" or "use once and throw away" isn't going to take us anywhere we want to be.

Sola tubes for daytime lights. Water heaters use a lot of power; there's no reason why everyone shouldn't have a solar powered water heater for summer use. Requires no solar panels or anything, just let the sun heat up the reservoir. Works for people in other countries. There's lots of example like this to build our society more efficient. Used vegetable oil and used motor oil can be burned for power. Of course our genius government makes that against the law because they say it pollutes the air... So they've created a system where you pay to dispose of things like vegetable oil & motor oil then it gets sold as bunker fuel where it... pollutes the air anyway. Then there's the farmers who burn thousands of acres of grass just so it grows better next year. All that's wasted energy.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The US is land of the wasteful. People don't need all the energy they use. The world has functioned before without oil; used to be wood and coal. Growing up our car used gas but the house was wood powered. The world even mined without oil power back in the day, and they can do it again. But if anyone's worried about it maybe they should advocate to slow down save what oil we have. The current mantra of "drill baby drill" or "use once and throw away" isn't going to take us anywhere we want to be.

Sola tubes for daytime lights. Water heaters use a lot of power; there's no reason why everyone shouldn't have a solar powered water heater for summer use. Requires no solar panels or anything, just let the sun heat up the reservoir. Works for people in other countries. There's lots of example like this to build our society more efficient. Used vegetable oil and used motor oil can be burned for power. Of course our genius government makes that against the law because they say it pollutes the air... So they've created a system where you pay to dispose of things like vegetable oil & motor oil then it gets sold as bunker fuel where it... pollutes the air anyway. Then there's the farmers who burn thousands of acres of grass just so it grows better next year. All that's wasted energy.

I agree. I see it all the time - people driving to work alone. Very wasteful. But the alternative, unfortunately, is to force people into situations that inconvenience them. In the short-term changing that is an awareness issue. Long-term it's an issue of conscience and culture. Absent those approaches, we end up screwing with individual liberty too much.

We can end subsidies of energy, but we also have to end subsidies of all kinds of other activities to be consistent, such as not-for-profit activities and/or charities. Both serve an economic function that is recognized by the masses as important, right now. Subsidize one and you're on the hook for many different causes.

Everything has costs AND benefits, and they're usually at equilibrium unless some government intervention or complete market breakdown has occurred.

[Athens]

There is more then enough Land to support 100 Billion people on this planet, as well as energy. The problem is resources and more importantly limited metals and materials. And cost. But its a issue of will and sacrifice and no one will do that, not on the scale needed.

[turtle777]

100B ?

No freaking way.

Where the hell do you pull those numbers from ?

-t

[Athens]

The population density of Paris is only 20k per sq km. Vancouver's West End is 21k per sq km and is very livable. 100 Billion people would fit in 2.5 Million sq km at a density of 40 000 per sq km. So physical space isn't a issue the worlds land surface area is 1,603,175,270,400,000 sq miles. As for producing food it also isn't a major issue. If the 100 billion people live in locations you can't really grow food and grow food in every inch of prime land along with underground and above grown hydroponic towers we can grow enough food.

The biggest issues is then Water and Energy. Water isn't a problem. We have a entire ocean to use for that. In fact diverting the amount of water it would be required to sustain 100 Billion people plus the crops to feed 100 Billion people might even stave off the the rising oceans from the polar caps melting.

The real problem is energy production. Producing enough energy to sustain a 100 Billion people. If every building built was designed as a net energy producer with the use of geothermal energy, solar energy, and wind energy where appropriate it becomes just a issue of producing power for agriculture and desalination and the network that goes with it.

Between Solar power, Wind power, geothermal power, Nuclear power, tidal power we can produce enough energy to sustain a 100 Billion people. NOT 100 BILLION PEOPLE living like Americans and Canadians. If the 7 billion people we had now lived like North Americans do we would need 6 planet earths to sustain that kind of life style for the population we have now. But a zero waste, moderate living life style could support 100 Billion people.

I can just picture the life now. Wake up from bed, have a 5 minute shower in a low flow system using a exotic soap that evaporates so you don't have rinse off. Do your business, get dressed. Head over to the nearest food establishment and order or if buffet style pick out breakfast, head to the gym for the morning work out then maybe go for a swim before heading to either a Education center or Work center. Spend 6 hours studying or working while taking a meal break at food dispensary. Then returning home. Head back out to a food establishment for dinner with friends or family. Then hitting one of the many entertainment locations for pool with friends or bowling or maybe a movie. Living spaces would only really be bedrooms with a living or communal room and a bathroom. No kitchen, no large entertainment rooms. People would have to get used to 300 sq foot, to 800 sq foot living depending on how big a family is. Eating and entertainment would be communal. A lot less importance on personally owned items.

This is what the West End looks like at 21k per km.


You don't need car's in that area, and everything you need is close at hand.

We would just have to change our culture, the way we own things, the way we work, the way we live but its all doable. Would it happen with our current mind sets nope. But its not impossible. Just improvable that we will give up our selfish tenancies which is hard coded into our genetics for survival. But perhaps future genetic engineering will fix that in the human race too. Make us more like Gene Roddenberry's vision of human kind in the future "Star Trek" No money, just doing each's part to maintain society through working or education, communal living and more socialization.

[turtle777]

Bullshit.

How do you feed that many people ? No chance.

Water: are you going to drink sea water ? Do you know how energy intensive desalination pants are ?

Energy: do you have the slights clue how much energy and resources are needed to build more power plants ? Do you even know how much critical resources all the "green" energy requires ? Where would you ever get enough silver and rare earth metals from to build all these solar and wind power plants ? How do you store the energy ? Where do you get all the copper to build all the transmission lines ?

It's just complete nonsense.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Ya, I can see you physically fitting 100B people on the planet, but you'd be hard pressed to *support* that population. We can't even fully support the planet's *current* population.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

That's because people insist on farming/ranching in deserts. Not because there isn't enough food available globally.


If you generate and store power locally then you can cut down on tha amount of transmition lines. Which are aluminum btw. Store as in batteries. Which you'll need for any vehicles and portable electronics anyway.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I'm fairly certain that The Godfather was the one who said "let's pretend."
The issue is what do we use, if anything, to replace them.

Originally Posted by Godfather

I never told anyone to pretend.

I never suggested anyone was told to or say pretend, my point was that BLAZE's arguments would've made more sense had he suggested we pretend.

There are all kinds of alternatives and I often wonder why we're so consumed with wind and solar. Nuclear, clean-coal, natural gas, shale, etc. are all viable alternatives.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

This whole thread is speculation based on a premis. Seeing as that premis includes "dwindling sources of energy" I don't see how any of my arguments have been so wildly off base.

Fission an fusion are the only long term sources of energy available, everything else will run out. Solar and wind are just methods of capturing energy from the fission reaction that is the sun. Biofuels (including burning plain old wood) only work if you can grow them inwithout irrigation an fertilizer.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ya, I can see you physically fitting 100B people on the planet, but you'd be hard pressed to *support* that population. We can't even fully support the planet's *current* population.

Oh we can, its politics and economics that fail to support our current population. Enough food is grown in Africa to feed all the people Africa 3 times over. Enough farming is done in Africa including non food crops to feed all the people 5 times over. The problem is Africans can't afford to pay for the food that is grown there. Most of the food grown in Africa is shipped to the United States, Canada and Europe for out of season fruits and veggies. Worse the food subsidies in Canada and the US make corn artificially cheaper here so its not viable to grow corn in Africa. We dump our cheaper corn on there markets. So a lot of land is used for stuff that is profitable like tobacco.

Our economy is designed for waste and no efficiency when it comes to the consumption of goods and services. IT would take a complete turn around in thinking and doing things to support 10x more people.

Canadians and Americans use about 20 times more energy, resources and food as 3rd world nations. And wastefully at that. The best of us can get away with our modern life styles by using only twice as much as 3rd world people. If you take the 400 Million that make up the US and Canada and multiple that by 20, as in to reduce our energy and resource usage to that of those in the 3rd world, that is the equivalent of 8 Billion people. The resources and energy consumed by just Canada and the US would be the same as 8 billion people in place like Cuba.

But again drastic changes. Do we have enough metals and material to supply 100 Billion iPhones, 100 Billion Laptops... Nope. But do we all need to own a car, a laptop, a cell phone, a TV and so on. Nope. Communal living, shared resources is about the only way 100 Billion people could be supported on this planet. Think of the Star Ship Enterprise from the Next Generation. People would live in quarters not full size full equipped homes with every thing being a personal ownership.

Future buildings will house 5000 and 10 000 residence, will contain large meal centers, pools, hot tubs, saunas, bowling centers, pool halls, theatres, arcades, gyms, ice rinks and so forth. Mini malls in each building for services like shoe repair, clothing, laundry services. Each building will be its own mini city on its own. At 5000 people per building it would only take 20 Million of these buildings to house 100 Billion people. That's only 2.8 Million buildings for each continent. At 800 sites in North America, thats 3500 of these buildings making up a city.

[turtle777]

Agenda 21 bullshit. The UN needs to die for putting this kind of crap into people's heads.

-t

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Athens 

To me this picture just reinforces the idea that we are overpopulated. Im curious, what area of the map would have to be shaded in order for you to change your perspective?

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Agenda 21 bullshit. The UN needs to die for putting this kind of crap into people's heads.

-t

The UN needs to split according to the categories of populations they represent: the developing who needs a way to raise their standards of living without destroying the landscape and the developed or those who want to keep the status quo.

[Athens]

When it comes to Wind and Solar power, the biggest problem is the storage of the energy. Large mechanical batteries are the best solution using hydro electric generation to off set the changes in Wind and Solar output. This of course then complicates where Solar and Wind farms can be setup to work with a mechanical battery storage system.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

To me this picture just reinforces the idea that we are overpopulated. Im curious, what area of the map would have to be shaded in order for you to change your perspective?

I dunno maybe all of North America?



If every one lived in a single city with the density of Paris it would be a 4th of the yellow area on this map. I forgot Americans only know of the US not the world. So how does seeing a world map change your perspective?

[olePigeon]

I think hydrogen will be the consumable fuel of the future (easy to find, easy to extract, etc.), with fusion power providing the bulk of our power needs.

Petroleum will still be useful in its thousands of other forms such as plastics, waxes, lubricants, tars, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I forgot Americans only know of the US not the world.

No American who has actually driven across the United States would claim this country or the world is overpopulated. This is just another popular notion people pick up with no basis in fact.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

To me this picture just reinforces the idea that we are overpopulated. Im curious, what area of the map would have to be shaded in order for you to change your perspective?

Being able to fit (not necessarily support) the entire world population in an area the size of Texas with a density equal to New York tells you that we are over populated?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Being able to fit (not necessarily support) the entire world population in an area the size of Texas with a density equal to New York tells you that we are over populated?

When your view of the entire world is only that of the United States (American Arrogance) I can see how he can come to that conclusion.

[Athens]

I found this interesting site last night and honestly I do have to agree 100% with everything they claim about the problem with cars and our society being based around them.

Carfree Cities

The website isn't the most well designed site, but the first 2 videos on this page are absolutely worth watching

Carfree Cities: Video

I do like the concepts though and think about the savings all around. We spend a lot of money on (The Car, The Insurance, the Fuel to operate it, The maintenance, The Roads and Bridges, Maintenance of those roads and bridges, Parking spaces, freeways) And the space, noise and pollution they take up as well. I spend over 10k a year on being able to drive just direct from my pocket. No idea how much of my Taxes goes towards funding the ability to drive.

Here is a picture of a European model




I have been able to experience a some what small version of this concept personally in the resort village of Whistler. And it is one of the things I absolutely love about the Village. I take vacations to Whistler every year just to spend time in the Village. I don't even ski.



Because we have a LOT more space in North America I think a design like the picture above from Whistler would be better for us then the European model that is on the carfree site. I find the European examples they talk about in the site to be bland, stoneish lacks warmth and green.

But I think a first big step in solving many of today's problems really does come down to how our cities are design. Being dependent on the car causes a lot of local air pollution. Uses up the most oil we have and this is critical we need oil for products as well. We need to stop just burning it away. A car free society would be a step in the right direction. The social and neighborhood aspects of it would be a great benefit along with the human health side of things. Would greatly reduce the amount of accidental deaths too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

When your view of the entire world is only that of the United States (American Arrogance) I can see how he can come to that conclusion.

From this should we assume all Canadians are xenophobic pricks?

[Athens]

I think you mean Americans... and I wouldn't say all, just most. A few of you can pick Australia on a unlabeled Map.... Just a few of you.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

To me this picture just reinforces the idea that we are overpopulated. Im curious, what area of the map would have to be shaded in order for you to change your perspective?

That's Houston. Spread out as hell. Population density here is nothing, yet so many choose to live right next to the Gulf of Mexico.