The problem is, our solutions to climate changes inevitably equal = "Use more energy".

Now, let's say, hypothetically speaking, that we're on the cusp of a new ice age.  (I've actually read articles to that effect, but I have no idea how reliable they are, so let's just call it hypothetical for now.)  What's the solution?  Among them, giant radiators to hold back the glaciers, increased home heating, cars designed for snow as opposed to normal roads, and so on.

What happens if the opposite occurs, and global warming actually does happen?  How do we cope?  One way is to increase the use of air conditioners.  In other words, again we throw energy at a problem and hope it goes away.

Going back to a mini ice-age, using less energy and doing something drastic would involve things like, say, abandoning Anchorage to the incoming glaciers.  That's just an extreme example, though: you can fight nature, or you can roll with the punches.  Sometimes you can even do both, but that's the exception and not the rule.

The only people who were saying Ice Age were some media outlets who misinterpreted scientific papers for sensationalism's sake.

Some of them even later used it to scoff, saying "see, they said we were going into an Ice Age! Silly scientists!", when they were the only ones saying that.

When it comes to the reporting of scientific findings, the Media has simply been too sensationalized by the profit motive to reliably report what is actually being presented.

It is always better to read the scientific articles themselves, rather than take for granted that somebody else's understanding and motives are such that they will reliably summarize it for you.

I can see why that's a problem if using more energy is causing or speeding up the climate change.  But under your scenario, where the change is coming no matter what we do, I don't see why using more energy is a problem.  What's wrong with using more energy, if doing so doesn't alter the climate problem?  This is where I'm confused.  We agree that using less energy would be better.  I know why I think that (because it could help reduce or slow down climate change), but I'm not sure why you think we should be using less energy.


Okay...and what's wrong with that, if using energy isn't causing a problem?


Okay, and again, what's wrong with that, if you're assuming that using the energy isn't contributing to the problem?


So, you're saying we should use less energy, because abandoning anchorage is the more desirable solution?  I guess I'm just not seeing what's linking your assumption to your conclusion here.

Is the problem energy or where we get the energy? For example if we use solar power it' snot like we are changing the ammount of sunlight...

Actually, while it was a media article, it was written by Larry Niven.  This was pre-internet, so I don't know how reliable it is (and I admitted as much) but he does know his science.


Because sooner or later, the sources of cheap energy will inevitably run out.  Even if we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, power has to come from *somewhere*, and we don't have any easy replacements.  The only solution is to stop accelerating our use of energy, instead of throwing energy at problems and hoping it'll go away.

You really have no idea how much cheap energy there is. Sun, wind, rain, a lot of our current electricity comes from hydro-electric, and there is a distinct possibility of tapping geothermal and tidal energy, in addition to efforts already underway to use wind power and solar. Then there is nuclear, which as it improves in effeciency can easilly last us several centuries, even before we get into issues of breeder reactors.

Sorry, but you really have no idea at all.

First of all I was raised in the Pacific Northwest.  For a long time, we thought we had the capacity to supply the entire West Coast forever.  However, ten years or so ago, we discovered that we couldn't keep up with California's demand during peak hours during a drought year.  So, the supply of hydro isn't there, and it depends on a predictable rainfall anyways.

Solar energy is pretty much useless.  Sure, you can get unlimited sunlight, but only during daylight hours.  To top that off, even the best solar cell can only derive so much energy from solar rays, so we'd need a tremendous investment for a low energy return.  California has wind farms hundreds of miles long, and they're not even close to being a major supply of energy.

As for nuclear... it has yet to live up to its promise, and the danger is very real.  Just look at Fukushima to see how deadly a nuclear accident can be.  Sure, it might work, but let me introduce you to another concept that slows down progress: NIMBY.  Aka, Not In My Back Yard.  People might be persuaded to accept nuclear energy, but not in their home towns.  That's also why we have trouble putting up new hydroelectric dams and solar farms.

The problem isn't with the energy being available, it's a matter of storage, plus the simple issue of how many sources. No Washington cannot supply all of California  based on hydro alone, any more than one duracell battery can power a car. But there is a huge difference between saying we don't curently have enough hydroelectric stations built *in Washington* to supply California with power and saying there isn't enough hydroelectric energy in the world to matter.
I am an electricla engineer, and the fact is our world is abundant with energy, it's all a matter of utelizing it efficiently and effectively, and most signifigantly developing teh means to store energy between peak production and peak consumption.

But doesn't searching for renewable sources of energy address this?  If we can find energy sources that don't run out, then doesn't this address the problem you raise?

But to take a different approach, what do you consider to be the method of "working with nature instead of against it?"  Are you picturing us as hunter-gatherers?  Subsistence farmers?  What is the ideal we should be working towards, in your view?  Doing without energy (or much less of it), means doing without a lot of the stuff we've come to depend on.  It doesn't just mean finding "natural" ways to do things, but also simply giving up some of the things that we enjoy doing.  What do you feel we should be giving up and doing without?

Again, NIMBY.  Where are you going to put the new dams, where people won't object?  How many more miles of farmland will need to be used up for wind farms?  And if you're an electrical engineer, how come you didn't know that solar cells have a max power limit?


Cheap energy just means we'll find more uses for it, until it's not so cheap anymore.  Fuel economy in cars didn't use to be a big deal, until the energy crisis of the 70's hit.

Anyway, the big problem right now is entertainment electronics.  Strictly speaking, my computer is an entertainment device, as is my mp3 player, digital camera, TV, DVD player, and many other devices.  Fuzing all of those into one machine would be a huge improvement.

The next one is transportation.  We're totally dependent on cheap diesel to get all our goods moved across the country.  Food, clothing, housing material, you name it-- it's all made and then shipped cheaply.  We need to seriously improve our transportation infrastructure.

Okay, but I don't really see a problem with that (again, under your assumption that we can't affect climate change).  If it's cheap, that means we're able to make more of it than we really need.  The fact that it's cheap seems to indicate that it's not (at least currently) as limited as you're implying.  As it becomes more so, prices will go up, efficiency will become a bigger driver.  It sort of seems like it's one of these "problems" that markets are actually well suited to solving.  You sort of seem to be saying "change our lifestyle now because we're going to have to later!"  To which the question seems to be, "why do it now, rather than later?"


I can certainly get behind those kinds of things, but again, it's because I think using less energy will help reduce the effects of climate change.  I don't actually see cheap energy or transportation as bad things in and of themselves.  If it weren't for climate change, I'd prefer that energy and transportation be cheap.  It sort of seems like you view abundance as an intrinsic problem, regardless of whether it causes problems or not, which seems very counter intuitive to me.

The problem is, the more dependent we become on cheap energy, the less likely we'll be able to handle it when things become not-as-cheap.  Suddenly people can't keep their electronics plugged in all the time, and it costs more to convert to cheaper/more efficient equipment.

If we start planning now, we'll have an easier time of it than when we're forced to change due to an energy crisis.


The problem is, we've grown dependent on it.  Just take a look around you: how many objects were made locally?  There might be a few items here and there, but I'll bet that just about everything comes from another state, if not another country.  When transportation costs shoot up, because energy costs are shooting up, parts of our economy might crumble because we're not prepared for it.

Any power source has a max limit on an individual basis. I mean sure a 250 KW rated wind generator can in fact produce 750 KW in high wind, but it's never going to cross 1.5 MW because it will reach overtorque pullout long before that. The same appleis to solar cells- they have *individual* power limits, based on the design. How does anything I wrote indicate I was unaware of this? Or are you just trying to rewrite my arguments to serve your ends? As we advance we can develop more effecient solar cells with higher maximum limits, and we can also use more of them to generate more power either in series for extra voltage or in parallel for more current (although with inverters and transformers it won't matter much which way you do it.) modern hydroelectric doesn't always require dams, I ahve seen designs for hydroelectric generators which simply use a fraction of the river's natural flow, though admittedly this is also at reduced power compared to building a dam and tapping all of the available power. But hydroelectric in teh US is certainly not a major growth feild, most of the good hydroelectric facilities have been built already. On a personal level though I have considered putting a small generator on the drainpipes on my house to generate some power when it rains... if I were to combine that with re-routing the water to a cistern... but I digress. My point is that the universe has an abundance of energy, and most of it is not in fossil fuels.

Okay, but why are you assuming it will be sudden?  Doesn't using alternative sources reduce (or even eliminate) the suddenness?  You're mess seems (to me at least) to be "make a sudden stop now, so that we don't have to make a sudden stop later" when the "sudden stop later" isn't agreed by everyone to be inevitable.

It sort of seems to be like you're taking a pretty fatalistic view of things:  We can't prevent/slow/delay climate change, so instead of trying to stop it we should just start getting used to the new climate now.  And we can't avoid an energy crisis, so we should just get used to going without energy now.  In both cases you seem to rule out even the possibility of avoiding or reducing the coming problem, and seem frustrated by those who are trying to head the problems off, even if their methods for doing so are the same that you're calling for yourself.


Possibly, if energy prices shoot up over night.  But if it happens gradually, the prices of some goods will go up, some people will lose money, others will adapt and make money, etc.

I'm all for reducing energy consumption, but I feel like you view humanity as helpless and unable to do anything but get used to the inevitable misery early.  I'm more hopeful that we actually can (though perhaps less hopefully that we actually will) make changes that will prevent these problems from becoming catastrophes.  You seem ready to throw in the towel, and say "we're doomed, might as well get used to it now," whereas I find the "troubles on the way, here's what we need to do to avoid it" position much easier to get behind.  To a degree, if I'm going to have to go without energy in the future no matter what I do, I don't see much point in using less of it now.  On the other hand, if by reducing my energy use now will have some benefit down the road, I can get behind it.

beyond witch good have been transported worldwide since before the Roman empire. sure it was by sail instead of steam or diesel then, but I don't think international trade is going to vanish overnight.

Because if you know your solar cells, you'd know that in even the hottest desert, there's a fixed amount of energy that actually hits the ground.  Allowing for thermodynamic losses, that means we're discussing about 0.55 volts per cell, under ideal conditions.  No matter how efficiently you design your solar cell, you're never going to exceed the amount of energy hitting the ground at ideal times.


I'm not, actually.  If we make a gradual change now, we won't have to make a sudden stop later.

I'm reminded of the old WWI fallacy: "Live for today because tomorrow we die."

Let me give you an example.  Everyone agrees that smoking is bad for your health, yes?  Let's say that reducing or quitting tobacco use has short-term negative effects, such as withdrawal, weight gain and cravings.  Even though you know that waiting until you have lung cancer is not the smart move, is it better to quit smoking now, or when it's almost too late?

Now, your argument seems to boil down to: "Damn it, I'm going to die anyway, might as well enjoy."  Which is true as far as it goes, but that's a lot more fatalistic than anything I've said.  In this example, sooner or later you're going to have to quit smoking: now, when it's painful but relatively do-able; or when you're in the hospital with lung cancer and emphysema, knowing that one more cigarette could very well kill you.

First, you do understand that just because you don't agree with something does not make ita  fallacy, right? What you described from WW1 was a philosophy, not a fallacy.

Secondly, yes, the amount of sunlight which hits the ground is fixed. However, it is not measured in volts, I can easilly exceed .55V with asingle solar cell by simply utelizing a capacitor to build up voltage over time (if I also get to pick the solar cell). Power is measured in watts, watt hours, or joules. Now from http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/s/Solar_energy.htm


so as I stated, there is plenty of energy. Also it should be noted that because teh top 30 feet of ocean absorb the vast majority fo solar radiation it is possible to use the lower depths (below the thermocline) as an energy sink and utelize the thermal differential as a solar-renewed energy source, where teh total energy being put into the system is over 5000 times the current human consumption of power worldwide.
so it will be a *very* long time before we run out of power, provided the engineering can keep up with teh demand.

A philosophy can also be a fallacy.

More importantly, using a capacitor doesn't matter.  I assumed that you'd be drawing off the energy as fast as you're converting it.  I honestly don't recall how quickly it gets converted, rather that's .55V per second, minute, or hour.  But once it's generated, I assumed that it was immediately stored or sent off to be used.  What you're saying basically says a large enough portion of the earth's mass with high-yield solar panels, we wouldn't have an energy crisis anymore.  The first question, of course, is where the hell are we going to put all this? Below the thermocline won't work, since that's more expensive and less efficient than ground level, *and* harder on the local sea life.

Second, it was not that long ago that we thought we'd never run out of power.  Gas and electricity were so cheap, Washington State public schools actually taught their kids that they could supply power for the next century.  So no, I can't predict what the next major energy drain on us will be: but if I had to guess, it'd be electric cars.

Volts per second is meaningless, there is no such measurement, and you are displaying your ignorance here. Volts is a measure of charge, not power, and the point to a capacitor is that it allows a charge to build up. You are completely ignoring (or ignorant of) the signifigance of the amps produced in photovoltaic cells, which is in fact the most signiofigant point, because a solar array which provides a combined 12V charge can easilly be upconverted by an inverter of chopper into 120V (depending on whether you want AC or DC power). From what you have written you clearly don't understand what a volt, amp, watt or Joule refers to, yet you expect us to defer to your expertise as to the availability of power worldwide? hardly.

I'm assuming you're saying it's a fallacy because it wasn't certain that they'd die?  But if the "dying" is accepted as inevitable (as you're saying climate change is inevitable and unavoidable), is the "live for today" manner of thought really inappropriate?  I don't think we're incapable of doing anything about climate change, so I'm in favor of doing something.  But if I except your position that there's nothing we can do about it, I'm not sure what the point of "doing anything" is.  The "change gradually and early to avoid the need for sudden change later" makes some sense, if you're talking about peak oil, but I'm not sure what it is we're avoiding by switching to renewables. What problem do we avoid later by giving up energy today rather than switching to a renewable source?


This is a good example, and perhaps will help clarify what I'm struggling to understand about your position.  In my view, "cancer" is climate change in this analogy.  If we reduce our use of fossil fuels, we can decrease the chance of (or severity of) the "cancer."  But if you take that away, and say we're going to get cancer, at the same time, whether we smoke or not, then the analogy seems to fall apart for me.  It does make sense to forgo the enjoyment of smoking, and put with the near term down-sides, IF it means we don't get cancer later.  But if the only difference is that we're avoiding the withdrawl symptoms when we do end up getting cancer anyway, then the case is much less convincing.  Again, it's not clear to me, really, what "cancer" is in your version of the analogy.  What bad thing are we preventing by reducing our total energy use (as opposed to switching to renewables)?  I'm not really seeing the pay off in your version of the analogy.  What am I missing?

Also, I'm still unclear on just what it is you think we should be giving up, energy-wise.  You originally were saying that the climate-change folks weren't pressing for enough of a change of lifestyle, but the only suggestion you've really given (one gadget that does the job of 5) doesn't really seem like a huge lifestyle change to me, or like something that people pushing for lower CO2 emissions would oppose.  What are you calling on us to give up that they're (in your view) opposed to?

No, what you clearly don't understand is that the amount of energy you can get from a solar cell is sharply limited.  The idea that one solar cell can supply us with energy for forever is beyond a dream, it's well into the category of a myth.  If you're going to attack my knowledge of electrical systems based on that, I have to worry about your clients if you can't grasp that idea: solar cells are not an infinite source of energy.  In fact, they're a highly inefficient and expensive source.

The issue isn't cancer, the problem is death.  Death is a certainty, but the whys and hows are under our control.  We know what energy dependence does to us, but we use it anyway, and like a drug (like nicotine) we keep using it more as time progresses.  No matter what we do, we're still going to die; but we have a lot of say in when and how we die.  That was the fallacy of the WWI belief: it was an either/or statement, based in the thought that they had no control.

The problem with alternative fuels is that they're not really any more efficient, energy-wise, than fossil fuels.  They still require X joules of energy to make the cars move, etc.  That energy has to come from somewhere, and I'm not yet convinced that electric engines actually use up less energy than gasoline ones.  They're definitely cleaner; but reports I've heard say that on the freeway, my mom's Prius gets worse mileage than a comparable Geo Metro, largely because the Prius's gas engine isn't anything spectacular; it's the electric half that is really well done.

As for what we can do, Here's a radical one: reduce our dependence on cars.  Electric or otherwise, quit driving everywhere.  If you live in a city, take the bus or bike instead of driving to work.  Walk to the store when you can, and bus when you can't.  If you have kids in soccer, carpool with other parents.

The only reason people really need to drive these days is if they live in the country.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:56, Fri 19 Aug 2011.

Okay, then what is "death" in your analogy?  That's what I'm missing, I think.


Sure, but why is that a problem?  We're not going to run out of sunshine, so it's not really that big a deal if we're not super efficient at converting it to energy, no?  Definitely, the more efficient the better.  But if it's a renewable resource, the inefficiency isn't really as a big a problem


They don't, unless the electric car is significantly lighter than the gasoline one.  But I'm still not quite seeing the problem with this.  Currently electric cars are running of power from the grid which comes from fossil fuels for the most part, so granted, it doesn't make a huge difference, and a fuel-efficient small normal car is probably every bit as good.  But if we start using renewable fuels, then even if we still use the same amount of energy moving a car from A to B, we're not using up as much fossil fuel in the process.  And that means reducing the carbon output (if, like me, you care about that kind of thing) and not using up the finite resource of fossil fuel (if, like you, you care about that kind of thing).


Yeah, that's a great idea.  One of the things I love most about living where I do is having a good public transport system so that I don't have to drive.  But I think most people who are trying to fight climate change would be right with you on that one.  In fact, it's one of the more common suggestions.  Out of curiosity, do you drive yourself?

Another energy crisis, one that we can't simply wait out.


That's silveroak's fallacy.  Even our best solar cells only get so much energy, and the laws of thermodymamics say it's impossible to ever come close to 100% efficiency.  Solar energy can never power the world, for that reason, not even if we paved the Sahara.


Nope.  I bus, bike, or if I have to drive (big grocery trips, for example) I carpool or give a few bucks in gas for a trip.  I do know how, and I could have bought a car, but I decided it wasn't worth it.

Okay, but here's what I'm thinking on this.  The reason an energy crisis is bad, is that we don't have enough energy to do what we want.  Your solution seems to be to stop doing what we want now.  It's sort of like all the bad parts of an energy crisis, but doing it by choice.  Granted, you're saying doing it slowly, now, so we don't have to do it fast, later.  But that depends on the assumption that it will automatically will be fast later if we don't do it now, even faster than advocated by those already pushing for similar measures.  Also, you seem to be actively opposed to renewable energy sources, which would seem to reduce the impact of an energy crisis, and I'm having trouble understanding why.  Why should we not use solar power, or other renewable sources of energy, if we're headed to an energy crisis?


But 100% efficiency isn't particularly important with a renewable resource.  Sure, it'd be better to have more efficiency, but if we only get 10% efficiency, we're still going to be getting sunlight for the next few billion years.

As for how much area we'd have to cover with solar panels to meet our current energy needs, what numbers are you basing your conclusion on?  Let's try this, just to get us on the same page:
what do you believe the energy per square meter we get from the sun?
What do you believe is the average efficiency of solar panels we have now?
what do you believe is the current world energy consumption?
What is the required area of solar panels needed to meet world energy consumption given the above answers?

You seem to be saying "it's impossible, we can't do it!  We shouldn't even make any solar panels at all!" which seems going overboard to me.  I understand you want to reduce total energy consumption, and I think that's a great goal.  I don't understand why you don't want to increase the use of renewable energy.


Yeah, not having a car is very nice, in my opinion.   Like I said, one of my favorite things about living where I do.

You're making the assumption that power demand will stay flat, or at least increase more slowly than we can increase our energy supply.  So far, that hasn't been the case.  If energy consumption continues to rise, things will get worse, faster than we can add energy *regardless* of the source.

Even if we were able to replace today's demands of current energy with solar/renewable power, tomorrow we'd still be short.


I'm not saying that we shouldn't increase it, I'm saying it's supply-side economics.  The problem is too much demand; and the more we feed into the thought that energy is cheap and easy, the more problems we'll have in the long term when we can't keep up no matter what we do.