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

No Population Bomb

theratchet.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: No Population Bomb

#91

Post by Spooky23 »

dsfasfasf wrote: post #52
Spooky23 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Al-Quaeda (or Mexican nationalist) plan is a long game that has a track record of success. In the US, formerly marginalized groups like Catholics (Irish/Italian/polish) and eastern european Jewish immigrant came to wield considerable power in the mid 20th century, owing largely to burgeoning numbers. The Catholics actively organized colleges, universities and fraternal organizations that brought young Catholics i…

>>Mexican Nationalist Huh? Care to explain how did Mexico come into the picture when talking about Al-Qaeda?

I meant to remove it, it's a distraction. There are Mexican political groups who advocate for a similar policy to regain control of many western states, who they believe were unjustly ceded from Mexico.

These folks are very much in the fringe, and I shouldn't have mentioned it,

Re: No Population Bomb

#92

Post by richardjordan »

ars wrote: post #90
richardjordan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that IF that's the problem... We can solve a lot of the world's problems, not just this one, if we can find an energy source with the kind of lifetime EROEI (energy return on energy investment) characteristics of petroleum based fuels. The non-trivial problem being we have yet to discover anything close to that. NPK inputs are energy intensive (check out Phosphorous mining). 95% of the world'a food supply is dep…

Petroleum isn't magic. It's just mixed random hydrocarbons. Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification to turn the tree into useful feedstock gases, then use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process to turn those gases into the exact same mixed hydrocarbons found in petroleum.

Please. You keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Do some homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...

I have been respectful of your comments in this thread so please don't see me as being overly harsh, but you are saying things that are nonsensical.

We don't love hydrocarbons because of what they are but because the energy we get from them exceeds the energy necessary to produce them so they're a net source of energy, and not by a little - oil is something like 100:1 EROEI positive. Nothing comes close in terms of lifecycle EROEI.

Re: No Population Bomb

#93

Post by ars »

richardjordan wrote: post #92
ars wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petroleum isn't magic. It's just mixed random hydrocarbons. Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification to turn the tree into useful feedstock gases, then use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process to turn those gases into the exact same mixed hydrocarbons found in petroleum.

Please. You keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Do some homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... I have been respectful of your comments in this thread so please don't see me as being overly harsh, but you are saying things that are nonsensical. We don't love hydrocarbons because of what they are but because the energy we get from them exceeds the energy necessary to produ…

First you said that we need them to make pesticides, and replacing them would be impossible. So I showed you how to make pesticides without oil. And now they are for energy, and the pesticides doesn't actually matter.

Talk about moving the goal posts.

Look, of course oil is used for energy, no one disputes that. The method of making synthetic hydrocarbons is not as efficient as just finding it in the ground. But it is a net positive for energy, and in a world where it's hard to find oil it would work just fine - especially if all you needed was pesticides and other organic chemicals.

If we run out of energy we are going to be in much bigger trouble than pesticides - but we won't run out of energy, because if we come close then public sentiment will shift and nuclear power will be OK again - and we have at least 10,000 years worth of that - at a minimum.

This article is about population, and your claim (I think), is that we can't actually sustain as much population as we think because we're going to run out of oil AKA energy. Except you are wrong about that, just like you were wrong about "If you can show me ANY process to turn trees into pesticides" - which I did.

We have many many options for energy besides oil, and we can sustain our population just fine.

Re: No Population Bomb

#94

Post by richardjordan »

ars wrote: post #93
richardjordan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. You keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Do some homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve... I have been respectful of your comments in this thread so please don't see me as being overly harsh, but you are saying things that are nonsensical. We don't love hydrocarbons because of what they are but because the energy we get from them exceeds the energy necessary to produ…

First you said that we need them to make pesticides, and replacing them would be impossible. So I showed you how to make pesticides without oil. And now they are for energy, and the pesticides doesn't actually matter. Talk about moving the goal posts. Look, of course oil is used for energy, no one disputes that. The method of making synthetic hydrocarbons is not as efficient as just finding it in the ground. But it i…

Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak.

Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something that's 1x EROEI positive is not remotely analogous to oil at 100x. Oil is used throughout the entire process from pesticides to mechanical farming instruments to shipping. Any small change in pice, availability or EROEI of alternatives affect all elements of the chain. We currently add about 10 calories of oil per calorie of food produced. This is unsustainable. Oil production is at or near peak flow rates. This is widely understood by folks in the industry, of which I was once one. Oil's relationship to food and population is complex and multifaceted but it is absolutely tied to it at this point.

This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out.

I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs.

Further NPK inputs to agriculture are also incredibly energy intensive - go checkout some pictures of phosphorous mining to get an idea. The original point I was making was that the Green revolution and other solutions of the past bought us temporary respite. Exponential curves don't continue forever in the real world.

Re: No Population Bomb

#96

Post by ars »

richardjordan wrote: post #94
ars wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you said that we need them to make pesticides, and replacing them would be impossible. So I showed you how to make pesticides without oil. And now they are for energy, and the pesticides doesn't actually matter. Talk about moving the goal posts. Look, of course oil is used for energy, no one disputes that. The method of making synthetic hydrocarbons is not as efficient as just finding it in the ground. But it i…

Your didn't show anything of the sort. Your understanding of the underlying science is weak. Oil is a fundamental part of our food making process. Something that's 1x EROEI positive is not remotely analogous to oil at 100x. Oil is used throughout the entire process from pesticides to mechanical farming instruments to shipping. Any small change in pice, availability or EROEI of alternatives affect all elements of the…

> This is a problem both in terms of oil as a feedstock and as an energy source. You cannot separate these out.

Of course you can. They are completely independent of each other.

> I really am interested what this mythical new energy source is you have in mind. I suspect you understand properly neither the science behind nuclear nor solar which also have significant full life cycle EROEI issues and are dependent on other resource inputs.

Nuclear. I'm not a big fan of solar - the EROEI is too low, and it requires too many resources to make enough of it, and too much land area.

I am well aware of how much energy it takes to grow food, and make fertilizer. But energy is fungible - it makes no different how you get it, as long as you get it.

You keep saying that oil is 100x, but that is no longer true. Oil is now 35 or lower. New nuclear reactors beat oil now. Older ones don't but are quite close.

You seem obsessed with the need for oil, that oil is somehow special. But oil is just another source of energy. It can be easily eliminated (assuming another source of energy is available).

Post reply on HN