I feel like the author may have posted this to HN before, at least I remember a similar, book length take on this topic.
Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because human economics in the realm of energy and or resource extraction are easily predicted by simple equations in a spreadsheet. So much so that this trivial exercise imparts real wisdom and is definitely not mental masturbation.
Unfair - I didn't say that all human economics are easily predicted by a spreadsheet. It's an exercise. A starting point for discussion. As in: to start with, point out the assumption that is wrong . Rather than just insult me.
> Unfair
Kinda I suppose. But the whole spreadsheet 'try this' trope is already unnecessarily hostile. You could put everything that spreadsheet exercise demonstrates into words.
And that's my main argument too. This equation/exercise is so simple as to be useless.
Human systems are multi-variate to the degree that a simple equation -- in this case showing that reliance on extractables is bad because their availability exponentially increases at the same time humans exponentially rely upon them more -- does not mean much of anything in the larger picture.
This equation sidesteps human ingenuity, free market adjustments that will be made, predicted population decline in developed countries, and if the equation did apply, where on the timeline of the curve would we be.
And those are just some of the criticisms of viewing the world through such a simple myopic lens.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way you’re phrasing that gives me a certain impression of your beliefs about what is and isn’t sustainable that may not be warranted, so I should ask explicitly: What do you think a sustainable way of life looks like? In terms of both global population size and typical life experiences.
To me a sustainable lifestyle would be one where if every person alive today's annual consumption was at the same level humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services could be regenerated over the course of that year- effectively balanced. I'm a fan of Earth Overshoot Day and their approach to this problem so I am using their definition: https://www.overshootday.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/ . A sustainable…
That’s what I was expecting.
Bad news, I’m afraid: If you keep the population and technology constant, the maximum sustainable consumption per person is lower than basic metabolic needs. Either the tech or the headcount needs to change, and nobody is going to let it be their head that gets dis-counted.
The main reason for this isn’t energy (current tech includes really cheap PV we just have not yet gotten around to building but could and likely will), it’s phosphorus. Phosphorus is mined for use in fertilisers, it isn’t renewed, the run-off flows into oceans.
Only thing we know of that might help is more tech, and the tech seems like it needs high-consumption societies to get proper funding.
Naturally, if you can get good research going without that, that’s a massive win for everyone, not just in this aspect.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#24The entire book falls apart because of two facts, both of which are in the book itself! "Hands down, solar is the only renewable resource capable of matching our current societal energy demand. Not only can it reach 18 TW, it can exceed the mark by orders of magnitude." (Section 13.9) "We would likely not be discussing a finite planet or limits to growth or climate change if only one million humans inhabited the plan…
I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps you disagree with the author on the desirability of a future in which virtually unlimited energy is available to humankind in its current state (see the upshot on nuclear fusion p. 269, for example). His cautious take on our collective ability to manage our energetic needs[0] does not seem unwarranted to me.
Regardless, I think the book remains useful for its intended audiences as a quantitative assessment of available energy sources given our growth path.
[0] "The rookie mistake here is assuming that adults are in charge." (p. 134)
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me a sustainable lifestyle would be one where if every person alive today's annual consumption was at the same level humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services could be regenerated over the course of that year- effectively balanced. I'm a fan of Earth Overshoot Day and their approach to this problem so I am using their definition: https://www.overshootday.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/ . A sustainable…
It's already unsustainable enough that people are decrying how urban planning policies are destroying the tax base and social fabric of society.
I think you’ve misunderstood the concern by several orders of magnitude here — mere tax bases and so on are about as far from the fundamental functioning of the ecosystem as “living in a dumpster under a bridge” is from “needing to borrow the use of your neighbour’s bathroom when you have a plumber in to fix your own”.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#26The basic M.O. here is not new: (1) Present the basic math of exponential growth to show that exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely; (2) claim that sustaining our present lifestyle would require exponential growth to continue indefinitely; (3) conclude that our present lifestyle cannot be sustained. The issue, of course, is in step 2.
Author even acknowledges it on page 27, but thinks this time Malthus must be right.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#27Ctrl+f fusion.
> "Fusion is therefore a complicated and not particularly cheap way to generate electricity. Meanwhile, we are not running terribly short on renewable ways to produce electricity: solar; wind; hydroelectric; geother- mal; tidal."
Fusion is the key to long term success for humanity. It paves the way to essentially unlimited cheap burstable power.
In the even longer term plasma fusion offers a way to create the heavier elements that we are running out of here on earth. Forged in a manmade nuclear furnace.
These pesky climate problems can be solved. We just have to mine ideas out of nature now instead of minerals.
If you're trying to think about humanity's long term prospects fusion should be the crown jewel, not an after thought you handwave away. I believe today we spend somewhere on the order of 1% of what we should be spending on fusion research.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#28Ctrl+f fusion. > "Fusion is therefore a complicated and not particularly cheap way to generate electricity. Meanwhile, we are not running terribly short on renewable ways to produce electricity: solar; wind; hydroelectric; geother- mal; tidal." Fusion is the key to long term success for humanity. It paves the way to essentially unlimited cheap burstable power. In the even longer term plasma fusion offers a way to cre…
disagree essentially because I believe we'd get into a situation where the problem becomes heat dissipation.
the problem is the human psique, not technological capabilities.
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#29[deleted]
Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet
#30Ctrl+f fusion. > "Fusion is therefore a complicated and not particularly cheap way to generate electricity. Meanwhile, we are not running terribly short on renewable ways to produce electricity: solar; wind; hydroelectric; geother- mal; tidal." Fusion is the key to long term success for humanity. It paves the way to essentially unlimited cheap burstable power. In the even longer term plasma fusion offers a way to cre…
It's still sort of a gamble.