We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[DBT]

Does developing new technologies require using ever more resources to achieve? A steady state economy has resources and may allocate a proportion of its budget into research and development, allowing progress. The difference being that it doesn't use more and more resources.

Quite the opposite.

New technologies typically allow us to do more work with the same effort, or the same work with less effort.

The problem, if you want to build a steady-state economy, is how do you prevent people from doing the former, rather than the latter?

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption? Would that even be possible, given a stable demand for goods and services?

As for preventing people from doing the wrong thing, that's the dilemma we are in. Fix the world? We can't seem to fix ourselves!

 

[steve_bank]

Bit coin mining sucks up energy. Profits increase by increasing computing. An energy singularity of sorts.

All those wireless devices add up.

There is a new phenomena, throw away clothes. You buy clot not made to last, wear a few times, and throw away.

From reporting the garment industry in general is a major source of waste. Years end clothes ed up in landfills or in the water. Garments are sent to 3rd world countries for recycling but most of it ends up as trash in the environment. Mountains of it.

 

[bigfield]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

 

[DBT]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

So what form would a technology that requires ever more energy and resources take in relation to an economy that is not based on growth, where there is no population increase and demand and consumption are stable?

 

[bigfield]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

So what form would a technology that requires ever more energy and resources take in relation to an economy that is not based on growth, where there is no population increase and demand and consumption are stable?

One current growth area is in data analytics, in which energy usage increases over time as we collect ever-growing amounts of data and perform increasingly large operations on that data. That growth is a function of time, not population size, and would continue even in a society were the number of people remains the same.

Wherever we can make machines do more work for us, we will do it. And more work will require more energy.

 

[DBT]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

So what form would a technology that requires ever more energy and resources take in relation to an economy that is not based on growth, where there is no population increase and demand and consumption are stable?

One current growth area is in data analytics, in which energy usage increases over time as we collect ever-growing amounts of data and perform increasingly large operations on that data. That growth is a function of time, not population size, and would continue even in a society were the number of people remains the same.

Wherever we can make machines do more work for us, we will do it. And more work will require more energy.

What are we talking about in terms of energy usage and information storage in the coming decades or centuries?

It looks like it's already becoming a problem.

 

[bigfield]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

So what form would a technology that requires ever more energy and resources take in relation to an economy that is not based on growth, where there is no population increase and demand and consumption are stable?

One current growth area is in data analytics, in which energy usage increases over time as we collect ever-growing amounts of data and perform increasingly large operations on that data. That growth is a function of time, not population size, and would continue even in a society were the number of people remains the same.

Wherever we can make machines do more work for us, we will do it. And more work will require more energy.

What are we talking about in terms of energy usage and information storage in the coming decades or centuries?

It looks like it's already becoming a problem.

Ever-increasing energy usage is an unavoidable problem. The world's population will stop growing by the end of the century but our energy usage will continue to grow. The path forward is pretty clear: we need to keep generating more electricity, and we need to do it in a way that doesn't cause climate change.

 

[DBT]

If the point is to live sustainably for the long term, why would a stable society want or use technology that constantly increases resource consumption?

Because people like figuring out ways to make our lives easier or more interesting, and the technology underpinning that tends to need more energy as it does more work.

So what form would a technology that requires ever more energy and resources take in relation to an economy that is not based on growth, where there is no population increase and demand and consumption are stable?

One current growth area is in data analytics, in which energy usage increases over time as we collect ever-growing amounts of data and perform increasingly large operations on that data. That growth is a function of time, not population size, and would continue even in a society were the number of people remains the same.

Wherever we can make machines do more work for us, we will do it. And more work will require more energy.

What are we talking about in terms of energy usage and information storage in the coming decades or centuries?

It looks like it's already becoming a problem.

Ever-increasing energy usage is an unavoidable problem. The world's population will stop growing by the end of the century but our energy usage will continue to grow. The path forward is pretty clear: we need to keep generating more electricity, and we need to do it in a way that doesn't cause climate change.

Information storage appears to be more than just a matter of energy use, where the scale, volume and cost (money and environment) of Infrastructure may already be becoming an issue. If that's the case, perpetual growth in information storage and retrieval doesn't seem to be sustainable in perpetuity.

Quantum computing may be a different matter.

''Despite the immaterial taste that the word ‘cloud’ has, the truth is that the cloud is heavily rooted in physical hardware. The idea is that data can be stored and processed in specialized, shared data centers around the world, and accessed online via web-based interfaces.

As more services and applications are turning to cloud providers, data centers are rapidly becoming the backbone of the digital world. This trend has raised concern about the rapid growth in energy use of data centers.

Several studies suggest that, despite efficiency gains in data center design and operations, the energy bill of data centers is likely to increase as a result of the rapid demand for cloud services from data-intensive technologies, such as video streaming, cloud gaming, social networks, autonomous cars, cryptocurrencies, IoT devices, virtual realities, and artificial intelligence systems (see next section).

Besides the carbon footprint of data centers, there are also growing concerns about the water required by cooling systems to keep heat under control inside data centers.''

The Environmental Impact of Digital Technologies and Data

Our increasingly digital lives come with a cost. This article analyzes the implications of digital technology and data for the environment.

www.datacamp.com

 

[Merle]

See, you're making the same mistake that @Merle is making.

Energy is needed; Energy currently comes from fossil fuel; Therefore fossil fuel is needed.

As you must surely know, I disagree with that statement. So why do you pretend that I agree with something I oppose? Doesn't that just waste everybody's time?

There are many sources of energy. I have promoted the book, Energy and Ambitions of a Finite Planet (Murphy, 2021)which is a thorough college textbook reviewing the available energy sources. Also, anybody who would take the time to click on this link to my post can see that I acknowledge other energy sources.

Unfortunately, so much time is wasted on these forums endlessly clarifying what is being said. It seems that, no matter how much a person tries to explain his position, somebody will come along and claim he is saying the opposite. It gets so frustrating.

The problem we have is that fossil fuels are the most efficient means we know of for creating thermal energy. Fossil fuels power almost all our high temperature industrial ovens and furnaces. It is the cheapest way we know to do this. There are alternatives, yes, and I have posted links to other sources of high temperatures without fossil fuels (https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-6#post-1151432) . However, none of these comes close to the efficiency of fossil fuels.

Alternate energy sources can be competitive with fossil fuels when producing electricity. That is because the process to convert the energy from fossil fuels to electricity is inherently inefficient, with the best new systems yielding an efficiency of about 37.5%. We are basically limited by the laws of thermodynamics, which limit the efficiency with which you can convert high-temperature steam to useful work. (And by the way, I am a mechanical engineer by profession, and have worked in a power plant, so I have first-hand knowledge of this.)

And yet even with this built-in inefficiency, alternate energy sources have a hard time competing with fossil fuels. We have known about alternates for decades, but nobody is anywhere close to building an efficient energy system that runs solely on alternates without using fossil fuels.

But what about the situation where fossil fuels do not have that 37.5% disadvantage? What about situations where you can use fossil fuels directly to drive the furnace, instead of converting the energy into electrical energy first? In these situations, fossil fuels no longer have that 37.5% handicap.

You might be able to compete with another golfer who is much better than you if he begins with a handicap. But what happens if you play without the handicap? Then you have little chance. That is the problem we have with high-temperature heating applications. When you remove the 37.5% thermodynamic handicap, fossil fuels run circles around the competition.

The manufacture of concrete, steel, glass, and most of the other components we use in daily life require huge amounts of energy. Without fossil fuels, we may find we cannot even afford to make these things for anything other than that for which we need it at any cost.

And that is one of the many problems with nuclear energy. (Davis, 2012, Zyga, 2011, Abbott, 2016, Clifford, 2022, Murphy, 2021, B, 2021a, Berman, 2023 ). If the concrete, steel, and other materials used to make the plant must be built without fossil-fuel powered equipment, it will be much more expensive. And nuclear is having trouble competing with fossil fuel plants even when the nuclear plants are built with fossil fuels. How will it work if they must be made from the electricity made from other nuclear plants?

 

[steve_bank]

In Canada a digital currency company tried to by a sort down natural gas electrical pant to power a server farm.

Server farms globally consume a lot of energy 24/7. Same with PCs. Video games.

When battery and gadget chargers began to grow the idle currents on all those plugged in chargers became a problem.

Now they usually have a low power idle mode.

 

[Merle]

In Canada a digital currency company tried to by a sort down natural gas electrical pant to power a server farm.

Server farms globally consume a lot of energy 24/7. Same with PCs. Video games.

When battery and gadget chargers began to grow the idle currents on all those plugged in chargers became a problem.

Now they usually have a low power idle mode.

"It’s estimated that Bitcoin consumes electricity at an annualized rate of 127 terawatt-hours (TWh). That usage exceeds the entire annual electricity consumption of Norway. " -- https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/bitcoins-energy-usage-explained/

What a waste of precious energy!

 

[Millrat]

The problem we have is that fossil fuels are the most efficient means we know of for creating thermal energy. Fossil fuels power almost all our high temperature industrial ovens and furnaces. It is the cheapest way we know to do this. There are alternatives, yes, and I have posted links to other sources of high temperatures without fossil fuels (https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-6#post-1151432) . However, none of these comes close to the efficiency of fossil fuels.

These are considered cheaper and more efficient, only because up until recently we have avoided paying the actual costs of their use; whereas nuclear has largely always been saddled with the cost of controlling environmental releases.

 

[Merle]

These are considered cheaper and more efficient, only because up until recently we have avoided paying the actual costs of their use; whereas nuclear has largely always been saddled with the cost of controlling environmental releases.

I think you are missing the whole point I was discussing, which is what is the cheapest source of energy for high temperature industrial furnaces and ovens. In that situation, fossil fuels have over a 3:1 advantage in cost. I doubt if changing who pays for the risk of environmental releases would come anywhere close to making up that difference.

 

[bilby]

See, you're making the same mistake that @Merle is making.

Energy is needed; Energy currently comes from fossil fuel; Therefore fossil fuel is needed.

As you must surely know, I disagree with that statement. So why do you pretend that I agree with something I oppose? Doesn't that just waste everybody's time?

I do not know any such thing; All of your statements on the issue thus far are nonsensical, without that assumption.

There are many sources of energy. I have promoted the book, Energy and Ambitions of a Finite Planet (Murphy, 2021)which is a thorough college textbook reviewing the available energy sources. Also, anybody who would take the time to click on this link to my post can see that I acknowledge other energy sources.

Good.

So how do you justify claiming that nuclear power plants require fossil fuels for their construction?

Unfortunately, so much time is wasted on these forums endlessly clarifying what is being said. It seems that, no matter how much a person tries to explain his position, somebody will come along and claim he is saying the opposite. It gets so frustrating.

The requirement to be precise and unequivocal is a feature of all effective communication. Most people are very bad at it.

The problem we have is that fossil fuels are the most efficient means we know of for creating thermal energy.

No, they aren't.

Fossil fuels power almost all our high temperature industrial ovens and furnaces. It is the cheapest way we know to do this.

No.

The cost of the environmental harm is routinely externalised; When those costs are included, fossil fuels are not the cheapest way.

There are alternatives, yes, and I have posted links to other sources of high temperatures without fossil fuels (https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-6#post-1151432) . However, none of these comes close to the efficiency of fossil fuels.

You don't seem to be using "efficiency" in a consistent way in this post. That's typical of the kind of poor communication that causes frustration; If you won't be a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.

Alternate energy sources can be competitive with fossil fuels when producing electricity.

Some can, some can't.

That is because the process to convert the energy from fossil fuels to electricity is inherently inefficient, with the best new systems yielding an efficiency of about 37.5%.

No, that's largely an irrelevance. The process to convert the energy from nuclear fission to electricity is exactly the same as the process to convert the energy from coal to electricity.

How could these almost identical processes not have similar efficiencies?

We are basically limited by the laws of thermodynamics, which limit the efficiency with which you can convert high-temperature steam to useful work. (And by the way, I am a mechanical engineer by profession, and have worked in a power plant, so I have first-hand knowledge of this.)

Yet you routinely conflate thermodynamic efficiency with economic efficiency; And you appear to be of the impression that externalised costs cease to exist.

And yet even with this built-in inefficiency, alternate energy sources have a hard time competing with fossil fuels. We have known about alternates for decades, but nobody is anywhere close to building an efficient energy system that runs solely on alternates without using fossil fuels.

Except for literally everyone who has built nuclear power plants.

Again, you're using equivocal language. "Alternate energy" is typically used to refer to Wind and Solar power; But here you also seem to be using it to mean "anything that's not fossil fuel"; And are thereby giving the false impression that all non-fossil fuel energy sources suffer the same drawbacks as intermittent renewable energy sources.

But what about the situation where fossil fuels do not have that 37.5% disadvantage? What about situations where you can use fossil fuels directly to drive the furnace, instead of converting the energy into electrical energy first? In these situations, fossil fuels no longer have that 37.5% handicap.

You can use many sources of energy to provide industrial process heat without a conversion via electricity.

Getting heat from fissile materials is easier than getting it from fossil fuels.

You might be able to compete with another golfer who is much better than you if he begins with a handicap. But what happens if you play without the handicap? Then you have little chance. That is the problem we have with high-temperature heating applications. When you remove the 37.5% thermodynamic handicap, fossil fuels run circles around the competition.

That handicap isn't an actual thing; It's something you have convinced yourself if via faulty logic.

The manufacture of concrete, steel, glass, and most of the other components we use in daily life require huge amounts of energy. Without fossil fuels, we may find we cannot even afford to make these things for anything other than that for which we need it at any cost.

That's simply not true.

And that is one of the many problems with nuclear energy. (Davis, 2012, Zyga, 2011, Abbott, 2016, Clifford, 2022, Murphy, 2021, B, 2021a, Berman, 2023 ). If the concrete, steel, and other materials used to make the plant must be built without fossil-fuel powered equipment, it will be much more expensive.

But not more expensive than if the cost of pollution is built in to the price of fossil fuel derived energy.

And nuclear is having trouble competing with fossil fuel plants even when the nuclear plants are built with fossil fuels. How will it work if they must be made from the electricity made from other nuclear plants?

Nuclear has trouble competing because of an insane level of regulatory costs. The fundamental cost of building and running a nuclear power plant is lower than the cost of building or running a coal power plant.

After seventy years of a concerted political effort to make nuclear power as uncompetitive as possible, it's still competitive with coal; Anti-nuclear campaigners have to appeal to governments to intervene and withdraw or refuse to renew licences from perfectly sound and working reactors in order to get them shut down - because without government intervention, they simply refuse to stop being profitable businesses.

 

[bilby]

These are considered cheaper and more efficient, only because up until recently we have avoided paying the actual costs of their use; whereas nuclear has largely always been saddled with the cost of controlling environmental releases.

I think you are missing the whole point I was discussing, which is what is the cheapest source of energy for high temperature industrial furnaces and ovens. In that situation, fossil fuels have over a 3:1 advantage in cost. I doubt if changing who pays for the risk of environmental releases would come anywhere close to making up that difference.

Your doubts don't constitute evidence.

Particularly as you have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination to think in a rational and unprejudiced way about this subject.

Rather than take your conclusion,and rationalise a way to reach it from a selection of facts and assumptions; perhaps you could instead rigorously test your assumptions, to arrive at a body of facts, and then use sound logic to determine what conclusions these facts support?

Of particular importance is to avoid the trap of conflating different meanings for a single word or phrase; And to avoid the assumption that things you can't see (such as the cost of carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere), don't exist.

 

[steve_bank]

The general sources of energy are

coal
oil
natural gas
nuclear
solar electricity
solar heat(solar furnace)
hydro electricity
wind
geothermal

For high temp industrial needs natural gas is today the best and cleanest source. Hydrogen is a possibility, but you need electricity equivalent energy to make hydrogen.

I don't think wnd and solar can replace industrial energy needs. Not of people want to keep the same economic levels and range of goods and services.

Those global concert tours of Taylor Swift take energy for electricity, creating venues, air and land travel. Beer, junk food, pizza ovens, cosmetics, it all takes electricity.

Being able to order a pizza n yiur phone and have it quickly to yiur dor takes what? Electricty.

The question for the passionate who want to abruptly end fossil fuels is what are you willing to give up?

I think nuclear plus solar/wind is the best solution.

 

[Millrat]

These are considered cheaper and more efficient, only because up until recently we have avoided paying the actual costs of their use; whereas nuclear has largely always been saddled with the cost of controlling environmental releases.

I think you are missing the whole point I was discussing, which is what is the cheapest source of energy for high temperature industrial furnaces and ovens. In that situation, fossil fuels have over a 3:1 advantage in cost. I doubt if changing who pays for the risk of environmental releases would come anywhere close to making up that difference.

I explained to you why it is currently the cheapest option. Burning fossil fuels should arguably have vastly greater regulatory controls than nuclear currently does.

The regulatory controls for nuclear power generation should and will be reduced in the future with better technology and educating the general public about the relative risks.

If only us ground apes had the same reaction (no pun intended) to climate change as we do to events like Chernobyl and Fukushima

 

[robnisch]

What about the problem of funding a nuclear plant? The return on investment is many times that of a gas powered plant. Who can wait 8 to 10 years to show a profit?

 

[DBT]

Government subsidized nuclear power plants?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As it stands collapse is inevitable. No amount of cutbacks can do more than prolong the inevitable. Thus solutions must come from innovation.

That sounds like a faith statement. Without technical salvation we are doomed. Therefore we can know that our personal savior, technology, will be there. Huh?

I don't know if tech can save us. I know that we are using up resources that we can't replace and thus the status quo is won't succeed.

When it comes to future energy technology, agnosticism might be a better option.(Floyd, 2020; Nikiforuk, 2023; Trainer, 2011; Tverberg, 2023; Murphy, 2012; Siebert, 2021; Clack, 2017; Ketcham, 2023; Gibbs, 2019) .

The problem is that limits on affluence also limits innovation even more.

Yes, that is a problem. But technology is no where close to keeping up with fossil fuel depletion, global warming, and all the other global boundaries we have overshot. Perhaps closing our eyes and pushing a little harder on the throttle is not a good way out of this mess.

It currently isn't--but that doesn't mean it's impossible.