Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#151

Post by ars »

romanovcode wrote: post #114
ars wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? They are very smart, but human level? Not even close. They are similar to apes in intelligence perhaps. That's not human level.

I mean, I think that one of the reasons humans are smart is just because of writing so that the knowledge gets passed down with much more ease. I think if these animals could write and read somehow they would be just as smart (if not smarter) than some humans :)

People who can't read or write aren't less smart than other humans.

No, there are no animals at all, anywhere even close to the smartness of humans. It's not a small difference, it's a HUGE gap.

When we talk about how smart apes, or dolphins are, we are talking relative to other animals. Relative to humans, it's almost nothing.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#152

Post by godelski »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #117
godelski wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain limitations we know about though. Like that making a spaceship would be more difficult. Not only getting out of the water and then into space, but just that you have to have your capsule at a higher pressure. Though landing might be a bit easier because you don't have to use boats to get people out. But then landing and exploring another planet will be much harder, and don't get me started on what t…

On the other hand, biological systems tend to use copious amounts of water to facilitate not just chemical reaction, but also keeping things moving (at molecular scale) or suspended and protected from shocks (at macroscale). It's easier to float things in water than in the air. The water-people could thus have certain advantages in their technological process. (On the other other hand, salt water is metal killer...)

> (On the other other hand, salt water is metal killer...)

I think this is the key. The modern world is an electrified world. But the other things you point out are in some cases advantages are also disadvantages. But I think the biggest thing is metal and electricity.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#153

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Well, it'd be hard to not have any methane hydrates. There is a larger hydrocarbon store of them under the sea, than there was ever oil. We've only begun to tap it, and its estimated there are centuries more reserves than there was oil.

If a planet has deep seas that are cold at the bottom, then they'll have methane hydrates. They're pretty much continuously renewed. I see a much more optimistic future for most galactic races.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#154

Post by godelski »

cogman10 wrote: post #122
godelski wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even with our current knowledge no. We still haven't even really figured out how to do the energy sector without fossil fuels (we're pretty darn close though). But outside of that we have a lot of problems. One of the biggest challenges in climate is that the population has been so hyper focused with energy and transportation (because they are the primary drivers, but only 60% of emissions). Modern society ne…

I think we actually could do it today. The major issue is we couldn't do it without some major costs (It wouldn't be cheap or free). What we'd have to change is the way society consumes energy. Right now, we operate under the paradigm of "I request energy, the grid ramps up and down to fill demand". Instead, we could to switch over to "I ask the grid if capacity is available and use energy when it is". That would req…

I think the modern world is also considered the electrified world. On demand power is what drives the modern world. It enables such luxuries and tools like computers, phones, power tools, the internet, etc. The grid responding no sounds like something that would be out of a 1980's anti-USSR propaganda, and I can't help but feel like such a world would be considered dystopian by most. And we currently don't have the capacity or technology to store electricity for long periods (i.e. by renewables) without another support structure like nuclear or biomass.

Additionally, we don't have electric vehicles/machinery that can adequately replace many of the essential tools that we have today. Try mining on a fully electric system. I don't think you're going to get very far right now. Maybe some of these processing systems could be electrified but not the whole thing (hey, maybe we'd go small modular reactors and that'd power these machines? But I doubt it).

The reason I bring up such things like concrete and steel, besides the logistics of constructing them (again, getting heat is a problem), is because when we talk about fossil fuels it is really a proxy conversation for climate and emissions. It is a danger that we are only focusing on this and not other things.

>> One of the biggest challenges in climate is that the population has been so hyper focused with energy and transportation

I do think Gates[0] wrote a decent article on the subject matter and how we need to start widening our net if we're really going to solve the problem.

[0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-clima...

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#155

Post by mLuby »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #128
mLuby wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? Luddites always whine about the resources "wasted" on space exploration, science, and now the beginnings of industry, but they don't appreciate how in so many ways the fruits of our efforts in space end up benefiting all of us here on Earth. And since those people claim to be concerned with finite resources and a fragile biosphere, why constrain ourselves to the resources of our mother planet (which res…

You misunderstand. I'm not against space exploration or colonizing Mars at all. I'm saying that considering "Mars colony" our only hope for survival with a fucked Earth is not a reasonable idea.

Ah, then we agree.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#156

Post by carapace »

bobthepanda wrote: post #148
carapace wrote: post #139

What is the essences of civilization anyway? I mean most of the things we need aren't energy intensive.

A lot of it is precision and scale. Without coke (the coal product) how would you bootstrap large steel production? Electric furnaces exist but use a lot of energy. Without steel and the loss of knowledge on mass producing precision equipment, we lose most of modern medicine's advancements.

Yes to precision, that seems like a primary metric for "height" of civilization.

But I wonder about scale. Like how much steel do we actually need?

More to the point of the OP I suspect that energy usage per capita isn't intrinsically linked to quality of life or "height" of civilization at least above some baseline level.

> we lose most of modern medicine's advancements.

E.g. stone knives are sharp enough to serve as scalpels? Is that what you mean?

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#157

Post by suifbwish »

mordymoop wrote: post #77

Rebooting with the current knowledge base, possibly. Booting from scratch with no fossil fuels, doubtful. I have long suspected that one of the Great Filters is the propensity of a planet to generate fossil energy. You will really only find large quantities of oil in a narrow range of circumstances, depending on specific levels of tectonic activity, duration and abundance of life, sedimentation patterns due to rainfa…

I suspect that quantum physics may eventually yield some very unexpected power source possibilities

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#158

Post by bigger_cheese »

bobthepanda wrote: post #78
jabl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think they made iron before the industrial revolution? Hint: charcoal.

Going back to just pig iron would be pretty terrible. The Old World cleared nearly all of its forests getting to that point.

With careful management and modern forestry techniques I believe sustainable (or close to sustainable) charcoal production is possible, I can remember seeing CSIRO do a study using Australian Mallee trees. These grow fast enough such that you can rotate which part of the plantation you are harvesting to enable something close to continuous production. I can't find paper https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?pid=csiro:EP115427 is closest thing google turns up.

You also get eucalypt oil as a by-product from harvesting these trees wikipedia tells me this has a high enough octane rating to serve as a fuel in it's own right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_oil

Now this might be difficult to achieve in a near collapse. I'm not sure the size of plantations you would need I assume would be pretty massive.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#159

Post by silicon2401 »

outworlder wrote: post #54
grugagag wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I personally understood the comment without any problem and wasn't even aware that loose was used instead of lose until it was pointed out. I got the meaning perfectly well from the context. To me these kind of comments pointing out to misspelled words are pedantic at best. And I take back that they're pronounced the same, I ran it through my head a few sentences and there's a difference at the end but…

> Let the grammar police (...) Wouldn't this be a case for the orthography police?

> > Let the grammar police (...)

> Wouldn't this be a case for the orthography police?

At least we already have the semantics police on the scene

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#160

Post by silicon2401 »

function_seven wrote: post #150
silicon2401 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you pronounce 'news'? As an american I've only ever heard it as 'nyooz'. Do you say 'nooz'?

Yup. Rhymes with "booze", "snooze", "ooze", and "screws". ... and "lose" to bring this full circle.

That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing, I had no idea other Americans say 'nooz'instead of 'nyooz' as I say
Post reply on HN