[ExI] Energy Defeatism

[Ben Zaiboc]

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> replied:
> 
> On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
> 
> >...This is supposed to be good news?  Ben
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't claim it is good news.  
...
> Ben, we have a lot of practical
> optimists here,
> technically trained, highly skilled, you among them. 
> So we are ideally
> suited to deal with these kinds of mega-problems.

You are too kind.  All I can honestly lay claim to is the 'optimist' bit, though.

> 
> Regarding what I see as the mega-problem staring us in the
> face, ...

> Do you see any flaws in my reasoning so
> far?

None.

> 
> If not, then consider: we as a species have plenty of tools
> to foresee what
> is coming, but we appear to be making almost no effective
> collective effort
> to deal with it.  We might see something like Keith's
> vision come to
> fruition, but I see no indication there is even passing
> interest in it from
> those who have the means to make something like that
> happen.
> 
> I conclude that ... we will pass
> through a time in
> which we will need to deal with high power costs,
> intermittency,
> under-voltages and so on.  But another way to look at
> it is this: we need
> these kinds of discomforts in order to move us as a
> species.  We are
> comfortable and conservative.  We have grown fat and
> lazy on easily
> available oil that still gushes out of the ground.  We
> want to stay that
> way.  Until that starts to seriously dwindle, it will
> be hard to move us.
> But uncomfortable people use their heads and make things
> happen.  Hungry
> people are aggressive and inventive.  So this is my
> form of practical
> optimism: humanity will eventually solve our energy
> problems, but we will
> likely not do it before the low-hanging fruit is picked and
> devoured in its
> entirety.

OK, Spike, that counts as enough of a Cunning Plan in my book.

My main problem was the way the original post seemed to be celebrating, rather than being dismayed at the prospect of 'alternative' energy providing almost all of our needs. After all, if it does, what incentive will there be to push beyond that?  All the focus would then be on conservation of energy, to get that last 0.1% by cutting down on energy use, and sustaining the position by keeping it down (with the consequent inevitable decline that I mentioned).

We'd better hope that 'alternative' falls short enough of our needs to stimulate a big effort to develop proper sources of superabundant energy.  The problem with renewable energy is that it won't, by definition, run out, so just 'getting by' on it could last indefinitely.  Not a good outcome.

So here's a more optimistic headline:
"Wind, solar has no chance of providing even 25% of our energy needs, so we'd better get off our fat arses and do something about it!"

Ben Zaiboc