[ExI] Energy Defeatism

[spike]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
...
>...OK, Spike, that counts as enough of a Cunning Plan in my book...

Cool thanks, I am a big fan of cunning plans.

>...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...

Oh ja, I am way past that.  Ben look around you.  If you do for more than a
few seconds, you will see waste everywhere.  Energy abundance has enabled
appalling waste.  This is in a way, a good thing, because it allows us to
cut back a lot while identifying and saving that which is most important.
That was really my point.  I have mentioned in this forum way too often that
transportation is an example of an area where we could cut waaaay back on
energy use, and still manage to get around in a timely manner, even if not
quite as fast and in as satisfying a manner as we do now.  Agriculture and
food distribution is perhaps the biggest energy user, bigger than HVAC and
transportation, and this too has plenty of room for improvement. 

>...After all, if it does, what incentive will there be to push beyond
that?...

The avoidance of utter catastrophe and the end of civilization as we
currently know and enjoy it.  That is one hell of an incentive.

>... 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)...

Ja, I completely disagree with the notion in the original article that it is
feasible in the short term to get to 99.9% renewable energy sources.  We are
a loooong way from that, and even if we get there, it will take enormous
investment and tolerance of temporary shortages.  It really does: if you
doubt, set up some kind of reasonable scenario using only known current
technology and make the estimates.  If you have ever had a camper that
operates on batteries and natural gas, you know exactly what I am talking
about: going off-grid is a compromise.  I can imagine getting to 70%
renewables in 20 yrs if we get on it, spend a ton of money and tolerate spot
shortages.

>...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...

Hmmm, OK, but look carefully at the first of these previous three sentences.
Suppose we get really uncomfortable living on mostly renewables, and we
successfully stimulate a big effort to develop proper sources and so on, and
we get not one goddam thing back from that big effort?  Oy, that is a
possibility, one that worries me.  We have spent a ton of money on nuke
fusion energy for instance, but none of it has paid.  

Just today I was in the Seattle airport and the power was down.  I was given
a good firsthand look at how our commerce system doesn't work right without
steady power and steady computer intercommunications.  Just getting a rental
car was a huge headache.


>...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

I am so with you there, Ben.  Of course I am all about engineering
solutions, being an enthusiastic engineer myself.  So much "engineering"
effort in our world today is really merely marketing.  We bend the metal
slightly differently and put on a different paint pattern and different rims
on these Detroits and let that pass as automotive engineering, when they are
really all about the same thing.  We are comfortable and we don't want
change.  I want us as a species to recognize that we need to manage the
coming changes before the coming changes manage us.

spike