Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Playergamer]

The problem GavJ, is people have to handle the very, very steep learning curve of figuring out how to live without any food from across the world/states. A lot of people would probably die simply because they weren't prepared for living in a world where we had to actually grow our own food in our own area. Plus, imagine the problems of getting local grown food to people in Manhattan.

[GavJ]

By the way, I don't think we probably need to do much of anything different than we are doing.

Fossil fuels will begin to dwindle, their prices will rise. As soon as those prices begin to go even a penny or two above that of currently (but not when oil starts running out!) less efficient solar, etc., huge solar farms will suddenly get built in a year or two all on their own, due to being more profitable, just like the original fossil plants were built in only a couple of years. And then R&D will get poured into solar at 10x the current rate as well.

As plastics run out, people will replace plastics in the least needed applications with already existing alternatives that will become more profitable and efficient (and thus market-fueled) all on their own.

If brownouts start plaguing a country, they'll start to relax their opinions on things like nuclear all on their own. Fears have a funny way of melting away in the face of $200 electric bills.

A lot of people would probably die simply because they weren't prepared for living in a world where we had to actually grow our own food in our own area.

Yeah sure, if for some reason, oil disappeared over the span of 5 minutes.
Fortunately in the real world, these things happen gradually over decades, and learning skills is not actually particularly daunting at all.

Besides, most of what I wrote was referring to local (professional) farmers, not people growing their own food. Sure, gardening is a nice penny pincher, and a lot of people might do it in the future compared to now, but that's not a lynchpin of the plan. All of what I'm talking about can be done by professional specialists who enter/switch markets over years as profits available shift due to resource change. You mostly only need to learn your new profession. Nothing about this implies any need for every citizen being a swiss army knife. Replace anywhere that i casually mentioned gardens with "farmer's markets" and you get the same picture.

[Playergamer]

I'd like to point out that America is beautiful at keeping our own citizens from preparing for what we clearly know is happening (66 percent of Americans believe scientists are still divided over whether global warming exists, according to random statistics.) but, yeah, you're right on basically all of your points that I can see.

((No response to the learning curve thing? that thread was beautiful.))

[GavJ]

((No response to the learning curve thing? that thread was beautiful.))

Lol, people mention learning curves like every other page on every thread. Too often to comment. Let us just privately rejoice in recognizing the beauty we hold in our own hearts when we see mentions 

I'd like to point out that America is beautiful at keeping our own citizens from preparing for what we clearly know is happening

Yeah we are probably slower than other people, however even if the populace waits aroudn to wake up until corportations begin switching over (for profit tipping points), even though we'd be more rushed than otherwise, i still think we'd probably have enough time. Especially with foreign aid from wiser countries if needed for a little while.

By comparison, look at how quickly America cinched its belt at the start of WWII, with very little lead time. or even more impressively quickly and dramatically, England in WWII. An infrastructure can wildly adapt in just a year or two if it absolutely must. It is more wasteful than gradual, wise, foreward looking change, though.

[sneakey pete]

you're still going to end up with base load issues once you get to much solar and wind installed. Starting to run into the issue now in some places I believe (citation needed). Geothermal would be better but i'm not sure it'd ever become cheap enough compared to Clean Coal technology.

It will be interesting to see how Coal will figure into the future. While it pollutes, coal is dam cheap. You can burn coal in a power plant and have it produce pure C02 (without the N2) so it can be captured and stored however to build it it is very expensive, but I wonder if something like that may end up in use as a cheap way to have reliable base load. (cheaper than building many more solar cells than you need for redundancy, perhaps).

There's also coal to liquid and methanol, as well as plant and alge based ethanol that can be used in internal combustion engines. I honestly don't' see them going away any time this century unless battery development makes a drastic improvement.

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, let me dump some numbers on this thread.

Interactive IEA simulation. Sadly, it's unfinished and cost calculations are not included yet.

UN document on energy costs, and Co² emissions.

http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_annex-iii.pdf

Interesting conclusions from that report is that even with the most optimistic calculations (Ie, a 100 USD/ tonne Co² price), high capacity factors, and all that,  coal is still cheaper than solar power.
Solar is, at the moment, still bloody expensive and costs will need to halve, at the very least, before they're a viable solution for large scale deployement.

[misko27]

Plus, imagine the problems of getting local grown food to people in Manhattan.

This is my primary concern. Not cities in general mind, but Manhattan in particular: We've so thoroughly canibalized every livable inch in a quest for space, we went and built on the sky; and if you look to nearby areas, the problem only gets worse with the massive urban sprawl.

[miauw62]

Plus, imagine the problems of getting local grown food to people in Manhattan.

This is my primary concern. Not cities in general mind, but Manhattan in particular: We've so thoroughly canibalized every livable inch in a quest for space, we went and built on the sky; and if you look to nearby areas, the problem only gets worse with the massive urban sprawl.

Meh, it counts for cities in general. Paris would have these problems too (even though there's a bunch of parks and such)
And Belgium I guess. We have really high yield, but I doubt it'd be enough to feed everyone.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Maybe not a power source as such but I think this is related to the Quest Not To Kill Our Planet (particularly pertinent in regards to the UK afaik.) Here's the article about District Heating Networks, which would save some countries a LOT of energy.

(Yeah, I know the article's from libcom and relates DHNs to communism but it's still clear, readable and contains correct information even if you don't agree with the political slant of the article - although I do.)

[10ebbor10]

The problem with district heating is that it requires the installation of a large central power/heat generation station near a large concentration of people. In most cases, this will result in protest.

- Geothermal district heating can only be used at a few locations. EGS, which would open more locations, has a tendency to cause significant earthquakes.
- Fossil fuel plants tend not to be popular, can cause health issues.
- Nuclear tends to be rather unpopular as well.
- Solar heating is hard, if not impossible, to build up in sufficient quantity in densely populated areas.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

yeah i'm aware of the potential downsides but there's really no doubt that its a lot more efficient than individual heating systems - and I think these days with utility bills rising fast there are potentially more and more districts that would consider it if schemes were explained and provided somehow (I'm a historian, not a heating engineer so I have no idea what this would entail.) In regards to the energy needed for a DHN for the time being fossil fuels would probably have to be used (an issue but given that almost everyone in this country has a gas boiler in the house (and the relatively frequent possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning if you have a shitty boiler) i'm not sure it's THAT much of an issue) although there are a decent number of areas here where biomass would be feasible (and in big cities, heat recycling from industrial sources/office buildings/whatever)

Thinking about it, with the prevalence of derelict and unoccupied houses in many parts of the UK at least (since we care far more about property rights than homeless people) I do wonder how feasible it would be to 'disguise' a heating station in the shell of a building.

[Graknorke]

I think that if people didn't flip out whenever nuclear anything is mentioned, the world would be a lot better off.
Really, fission would be fandabi-fucking-dozi, but everyone just remembers disasters and, "but muh radiation!!!" rather than the vast majority of nuclear power plants that are entirely uneventful.

[burningpet]

Yeah, there is only so much surface area that can be used and you can't stack them. Researchers are also working on making the solar panels more efficient.

I like these two solutions. although, that road solution is probably not realistic as it would involve high maintenance and would probably prove a bad surface for cars.

http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml

https://www.google.co.il/search?q=solar+bridge&safe=off&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jDnuU9vmOKuV7AaPtYHICQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955#q=solar+island&safe=off&tbm=isch

[Playergamer]

...Solar roadways is a joke.

[andrea]

if the image in the opening post is right, any country that isn't absolutely packed with people isn't going to have significant trouble finding enough land to supply their need with solar power.
Transportation, storing, price might be problems, but raw quantity of land shouldn't be.