We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[bilby]

Why the fuck* would abundant cheap and clean energy be expected to lead to population growth??

The people who currently have access to plentiful energy at prices they can easily afford, have a Total Fertility Rate considerably below that of the people who currently struggle to have access to energy sources, and/or to afford abundant quantities of it.

To assume that increased access to, or affordability of, energy would lead to population growth is (at best) absurd, and requires either ignorance of the current state of the world, incompetence at extrapolating from the status quo, or hidden knowledge of some unmentioned factor that (for no obvious reason) the people making this daft assumption refuse to publicise.

Hyper decadence has always been, and will doubtless remain, the purview of the hyper wealthy and hyper powerful.

Unless you consider owning a widescreen TV to be "hyper decadence".








* pun intended

 

[DBT]

Neo classical economists and politicians cannot abide stagnation, it appears. An economy that is not growing is seen as stagnation.

One brake on family size is the cost of raising children, where incentives are offered for having children. Or failing that, taking migrants from nations that have higher birth rates but lower economic opportunities.

Our illustrious Prime Minister, for instance, is going down that path in a big way, even before there is sufficient infrastructure, housing, etc, to cater to the influx of migrants without creating a housing crisis.

 

[Merle]

Economic growth rate, almost by definition, is given by labor productivity growth plus the growth in gross employment.

As we're already nitpicking, actually, the economic growth rate (or more precisely, the growth factor) of anything is given by the growth factor of labour productivity multiplied by the growth factor of gross employment.

Since we're nitpicking, let me point out that you need to add 1 to both numbers before multiplying, and subtract 1 afterwords. It was to avoid those extra words that I simplified for typical rates.

For example, two 2% growth rates will "add up" to 4.04%, not 4%.
But this is NOT the product of the rates (.02 x .02 = .0004), but rather (1+0.2) x (1+.02) - 1 = .0404.

I attempted to avoid these arithmetic details by inserting the word "almost." As it turns out, that was at best, only ALMOST a good idea!

Ok, to pick another nit:

You add them and you add their product.

2% added to 2% = 2% + 2% + (2% of 2%).

That reminds me of a coworker who told me that, if I saved 5% on component A, and 5% on component B, and so on, for each of 10 components in my machine, I would reduce the total cost of my machine by 50%.

Unfortunately, he was serious.

 

[bigfield]

Neo classical economists and politicians cannot abide stagnation, it appears. An economy that is not growing is seen as stagnation.

I think one reason for that is competition.

Let's say Australia's economy stopped growing, but everyone else's economy kept growing. Australia would become a poorer country relative to other countries, and this could make it more expensive to Australia to import the things that we don't make here.

No single government will willingly impoverish their people in such a way.

Our illustrious Prime Minister, for instance, is going down that path in a big way, even before there is sufficient infrastructure, housing, etc, to cater to the influx of migrants without creating a housing crisis.

We've been in a housing crisis for at least a couple of decades now. In the second half of the 20th century population growth was high but Boomers still had access to abundant and cheap housing. The housing crisis didn't happen because of an "influx" of migrants, but because government stopped building houses for people, and because landlords are pushing owner-occupiers out of the market.

Immigrants are a convenient scapegoat, but even if we stopped or slowed immigration we would still have a housing crisis. This is because landlords will continue to drive up house prices, both by adding demand and by reducing supply, and because government has stopped building affordable housing for people.

 

[Merle]

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

Seeing as you like visuals rather than text:

View attachment 45415

In what way does this statistic matter?

First, a more meaningful value is the reciprocal (Kg per Megajoule). We will use so many Megajoules of electricity this year. Based on the fuel we select, how many Kgs of fuel do we need? That is more helpful. That chart will save you a lot of paper.

But more important, why does size matter? If a man gives his wife a small package, does that mean he is being cheap? Certainly not. Expensive things sometimes come in small packages. Likewise, I do not care about the size of the package of prepared fuel that the utility company receives to generate my electricity. I care more about how much that package costs. And even more than that, I care about how much the electricity costs that the utility company produces. If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

 

[Elixir]

how many Kgs of fuel do we need? That is more helpful

But the chart would look just as funny. The nuclear fuel bar would be invisible while the others run off the top of the page.

If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

It would bear some resemblance if nuclear energy wasn’t being choked off politically.

 

[Merle]

If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

It would bear some resemblance if nuclear energy wasn’t being choked off politically.

Source, please.

 

[Elixir]

If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

It would bear some resemblance if nuclear energy wasn’t being choked off politically.

Source, please.

The math. Your math.

 

[Bomb#20]

We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

Every time I'm faced with a decision I close my eyes and see the same picture. Whenever I consider an action I ask myself, 'will this help make this picture a reality? Pull it out of my mind and into the world?' And I only act if the answer is "yes". A picture of me on the Iron Throne...

 

[Elixir]

We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

Every time I'm faced with a decision I close my eyes and see the same picture. Whenever I consider an action I ask myself, 'will this help make this picture a reality? Pull it out of my mind and into the world?' And I only act if the answer is "yes". A picture of me on the Iron Throne...

That’s one of Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People iirc.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ask your AI buddy what should be done....

LOL, Should I respond to this, or should I worry that humor-challenged people will complain?

Decisions, decisions.

What the heck, this is what ChatGPT drew when I asked for, "The world of the future in which our energy problems have been solved." It drew:

View attachment 45413
Apparently it likes wind, solar and sailboats, and some sort of spherical something. Perhaps it is fusion.

For the pessimists, I asked it to draw, "the world of the future in which our energy problems have not been solved." It drew, coal, coal, coal, internal combustion engines, and two-bladed windmills.

View attachment 45414

Why is ChatGPT so sure that in the future the Earth will be in orbit around another planet so close it's inside the Roche limit?

 

[Elixir]

What's that gimungous planet in the background?
Why don't we just move there - it looks pretty good!

Why is ChatGPT so sure that in the future the Earth will be in orbit around another planet so close it's inside the Roche limit?

Who cares? Finders keepers!

 

[bilby]

We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

Every time I'm faced with a decision I close my eyes and see the same picture. Whenever I consider an action I ask myself, 'will this help make this picture a reality? Pull it out of my mind and into the world?' And I only act if the answer is "yes". A picture of me on the Iron Throne...

That’s one of Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People iirc.

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.

Covey died in 2012...

 

[Elixir]

We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

Every time I'm faced with a decision I close my eyes and see the same picture. Whenever I consider an action I ask myself, 'will this help make this picture a reality? Pull it out of my mind and into the world?' And I only act if the answer is "yes". A picture of me on the Iron Throne...

That’s one of Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People iirc.

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.

Covey died in 2012...

I used to ask my sales reps to read the 7 Habits book. That was around 2008-2010. Hypocrite that I am, I never did more than skim it myself, but it seemed to contain some nuggets that were appropriate for the sales force at the time... my remembrance of the title of that habit ("begin with the end in mind") obviously indicates that my phenomenal big brain memory adequately compensates for not reading anything, and excuses the associated hypocrisy.

 

[Bomb#20]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.
...

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

The 700 year figure was for uranium that was already known to be concentrated enough for profitable extraction; it wasn't for dispersed uranium.

 

[steve_bank]

I have driven past the site on the way to the shore. Dontt know about today the cooling towers were there for a long time. A bond was approved for the nuclear plant and the cost of electricity dropped below where it was profitable to finish building it.

Energy Northwest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Energy Northwest (formerly Washington Public Power Supply System) is a public power joint operating agency in the northwest United States, formed 67 years ago in 1957 by Washington state law to produce at-cost power for Northwest utilities. Headquartered in the Tri-Cities at Richland, Washington, the WPPSS became commonly (and derisively) known as "Whoops!",[1][2] due to over-commitment to nuclear power in the 1970s which brought about financial collapse and the second largest municipal bond default in U.S. history.[3] WPPSS was renamed Energy Northwest in November 1998, and agency membership includes 28 public power utilities, including 23 of the state's 29 public utility districts.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have driven past the site on the way to the shore. Dontt know about today the cooling towers were there for a long time. A bond was approved for the nuclear plant and the cost of electricity dropped below where it was profitable to finish building it.

Nuclear power has been unprofitable because it can't compete on price with fossil fuels, because the government requires nuclear producers to internalize their externalities but does not require fossil fuel producers to internalize their externalities. If we had a carbon tax at a level corresponding to the harm CO2 does to people and the environment then the cost of electricity would rise to where it's profitable to build nuclear plants.

 

[steve_bank]

It is the mature of the for profit system.

I think the same thing happened to a wind farm in astern Washington.

In Hawaii and California utilities promoted solar electricity by guaranteeing a min rate for electricity put into the grid. It ended up upsetting the rate structures and they canceled or curtailed the programs.

I think Germany's solar buy back program did not work out either.

We have an secession with all things being determined by lowest possible cost. Good for miltray programs and commercial products like computers.

Not so good for critical infrastructure like electricity.

 

[robnisch]

From everything I have read, the problem with nuclear is the payback time. It can be as much as 18 years for a plant to be in the black. For a gas plant about 6 years. The only way I see more nuclear soon is with heavy government support.

 

[Merle]

What's that gimungous planet in the background?
Why don't we just move there - it looks pretty good!

Except the scenario behind the picture said our energy problems had not been solved. In that case, how are you getting into outer space?