The solutions to not having enough energy

[apathy maybe]

This thread was inspired by the discussion on biofuels (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65113) but is also a response to other threads, such as on nuclear power.

First of all, I don't think that nuclear power (fission anyway) is a viable solution to our energy needs. But, this is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about how we use too much energy. You may disagree of course. So, I present two basic groups of ways to use less energy. More efficiency and simply using less.


Efficient use (e.g. turning of lights and appliances when they are not in use), more efficient appliances (e.g. fluorescent and LED lights instead of incandescent ones), and more efficient travel (e.g. not using vehicle's designed for rough country (e.g. SUVs) in cities, using public transport and riding a bike or walking) are all cases which I think everyone can agree on.

More controversial perhaps is the argument that we should be using less energy generally. So, less use of appliances (such as electric can openers, what are you, an invalid?) and less travel (what do you think teleconferencing was invented for? You just want an excuse for a junket). Obviously there are exceptions, but generally, I think that these are all ways to reduce the energy consumption of the biggest energy users, the "west".

What do you think?

[Jazzratt]

A good start would be to stop using obsolete technology which is a hell of a lot more inefficient than technology introduced to replace it, I also agree (sort of) with using less non-essential pieces of technology, although what non-essential means is a rather prickly area - most people can agree that, for people with functioning hands at least, electric tin openers and the like are a waste of energy and grossly inefficient but what else would you count as non-essential? TV & Computers? Air conditioning (although to be fair, more efficient use of this would be handy - especially house heating systems - it's not that fucking cold that you have to whack your house temperature up to tropical levels.)? I certainly agree with the efficient use idea though and try to practice it myself - I generally don't bother turning lights on unless doing something in the dark is impossible/dangerous for example.

Sorry for the rather rambling stream of consciousness type format but I hope I made some good points.

[apathy maybe]

Certainly, in fact heating and cooling is one area that I should have addressed initially but didn't. Both homes and offices can be built to require very little energy to keep them at a decent temperature in most climates. Insulation can be used, as well as specific design features (overhangs for example that shade windows during the summer months, when the sun is high, but let heat and light in during winter, when the sun is low in the sky).

I deliberately didn't try and talk about what sort of technology is not needed (beyond electric can openers), because it is such a debatable point. I think, for example, that computers (especially when designed to use minimal power (such as laptops) and to be easily recycled (none that I know of)) have the potential to be a great net energy saver. Both in terms of using less energy for travel (teleconferencing, email and similar) and also in using less paper. Computers more generally (beyond personal computers) can be used to switch lights and heating/cooling on and off, and alert technicians to problems in a variety of areas.

[Vanguard1917]

Efficient use (e.g. turning of lights and appliances when they are not in use), more efficient appliances (e.g. fluorescent and LED lights instead of incandescent ones), and more efficient travel (e.g. not using vehicle's designed for rough country (e.g. SUVs) in cities, using public transport and riding a bike or walking) are all cases which I think everyone can agree on.

More controversial perhaps is the argument that we should be using less energy generally. So, less use of appliances (such as electric can openers, what are you, an invalid?) and less travel (what do you think teleconferencing was invented for? You just want an excuse for a junket). Obviously there are exceptions, but generally, I think that these are all ways to reduce the energy consumption of the biggest energy users, the "west".

What do you think?

I think that environmentalism has replaced traditional religion in preaching to people that unless they change their sinful ('wasteful') lifestyles, tighten their belts and practice self-restraint they face damnation ('environmental catastrophe').

Today's eco-preachers are the new priests of our time.

Telling people what kind of tin opener they should and should not use? Telling people that they should walk and peddle to work? Telling people off for wanting to see the world? Telling ordinary people that they should reduce their consumption?

This is what passes for radicalism today.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 pm

Efficient use (e.g. turning of lights and appliances when they are not in use), more efficient appliances (e.g. fluorescent and LED lights instead of incandescent ones), and more efficient travel (e.g. not using vehicle's designed for rough country (e.g. SUVs) in cities, using public transport and riding a bike or walking) are all cases which I think everyone can agree on.

More controversial perhaps is the argument that we should be using less energy generally. So, less use of appliances (such as electric can openers, what are you, an invalid?) and less travel (what do you think teleconferencing was invented for? You just want an excuse for a junket). Obviously there are exceptions, but generally, I think that these are all ways to reduce the energy consumption of the biggest energy users, the "west".

What do you think?

I think that environmentalism has replaced traditional religion in preaching to people that unless they change their sinful ('wasteful') lifestyles, tighten their belts and practice self-restraint they face damnation ('environmental catastrophe').
Don't be obtuse. We have a finite amount of fuels that can be used to convert useless energy into productive energy y and finite resources, we are not operating in an abundance (yet) because the economic mismanagement that comes with capitalism. An environmental catastrophe seems fairly unlikely compared to simply running out of fuels or other resources, that is why it is sensible to oppose the use of energy on bloody silly things like electric fucking can openers.


Today's eco-preachers are the new priests of our time.
We still have priests, fuckwit. While one could argue that a lot of greens are needlessly exaggerating the existent threat for whatever end it is pure folly to contend that we have infinite resources.


Telling people what kind of tin opener they should and should not use? Telling people that they should walk and peddle to work? Telling people off for wanting to see the world? Telling ordinary people that they should reduce their consumption?
What exactly is your problem with someone telling you what you should do? It's not that you must do something, just that it is sensible to take that approach until an abundant energy source can be found. As for seeing the world, that's all fine by me but I would recommend only using planes for long haul journeys as it is grossly inefficient to use them for short haul travel.


This is what passes for radicalism today.
No one has suggested that any of this is fucking radicalism, you're arguing with figments of your imagination again.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

On the moon there is a substance called Helium-3

and using fission you can make 1 tonne power a city of 10 million people for a year.

Its also has only tiny amounts of negative emission and pollutants.

Scientists estimate the amount of it that is on the moon could power the earth with a population of 12 billion for thousands of years.

Only tough job is to find a way to mine it efficiently, but thats probably just waiting for the technology to be developed.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

oh and boifuels and wind power or tidal power or solar power at the moment is bullshit.

that is unless your planning on culling the human race into 100 million.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Telling people what kind of tin opener they should and should not use? Telling people that they should walk and peddle to work? Telling people off for wanting to see the world? Telling ordinary people that they should reduce their consumption?
I'll only address this part of your comment, because frankly the rest of it is pure shit. This is only half shit. (While I acknowledge that many environmentalists do exaggerate threats, and I oppose that it doesn't mean that there aren't environmental problems.)
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I oppose that sort of thing. I'm suggesting ways that people can reduce their energy consumption. This is a sure fire way of those people saving money. Good deal hey!? Save the environment AND save money.

While I think that many people do over consume (do you really need to throw away that shirt that you only wore twice?), it is mainly the rich. And you don't have a problem with telling the rich what to do do you?

Anyway, I'm not telling people off. I'm saying that pointless and wasteless excessive use of energy is stupid.

We'll start with walking and riding to work, there are a number of good reasons (apart from environmental ones) why people should (if they can) do these. Saves them money for one. Good exercise for another (and many people need that!). Lets them appreciate their city more.

Now seeing the world. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't see the world. I am one of those people who want to. However, there are cases where it is simply not needed. Especially in business areas.

[Vanguard1917]

So basically you see reduced consumption - i.e. some kind of system of rationing - as the solution to energy shortages?

Why aren't you calling for more investment in energy? What about much greater investment in nuclear power and hydroelectric power - forms of power which would provide plenty of energy without greenhouse gas emissions?

The question is: why are the Greens calling for rationing and cuts in consumption when they should really be calling for more government investment in energy?

[Vanguard1917]

Actually, i should correct myself: it's not just that environmentalists don't call for more investment in nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy, they actively oppose and campaign against such energy!

Rationing, rationing, rationing - that's all that the Greens have to offer to mankind.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:00 pm
So basically you see reduced consumption - i.e. some kind of system of rationing - as the solution to energy shortages?

Until a more efficient source of energy can be found it is required, mainly to give us enough time to institute a new energy infrastructure - these things take time to set up so maximising the time they can have to set up is simply the logical thing to do.


Why aren't you calling for more investment in energy?
I'm not calling for it on this thread because that isn't what this thread is about, numbskull. I am an advocate of it in general.

What about much greater investment in nuclear power and hydroelectric power - forms of power which would provide plenty of energy without greenhouse gas emissions?
Of course I fucking support them. Look through all the other threads and point me to any examples where I have discouraged developments in these areas.


The question is: why are the Greens calling for rationing and cuts in consumption when they should really be calling for more government investment in energy?
Because Greens generally don't understand that the "belt-tightening" they advocate is temporary at best in terms of being a solution.

[ichneumon]

vanguard doesn't understand that whole societies can and have collapsed due to lack of energy resources. historically, there's usually a ten year time lag between cutting down the last tree and wide spread cannibalism. for us, it would be oil deposits.

personally, i loathe the excesses of consumer capitalism. i think it's mindless addiction and that the best way to destroy it is to stop buying and using junk.

yes, we need to rebuild our cities to get rid of cars. yes, we need to be energy efficient. tell people what to do? we just make the energy expensive, and use the taxes to invest in new types of energy. *hopefully* there is some solution.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not calling for it on this thread because that isn't what this thread is about, numbskull. I am an advocate of it in general.

The thread is about 'solutions to not having enough energy'. The most obvious solution is: more investment in energy.

Instead of putting pressure on bourgeois governments to invest more money in energy, environmentalists oppose such investment and they call on the government to bring in a system of rationing.

This clearly exposes the inherently reactionary nature of environmentalism.

[ichneumon]

throwing money around does not make more energy. you are SUCH a capitalist! that is EXACTLY what they say when scientists tell them that we are now at peak oil capacity. "the rising cost of energy will cause more investment which will generate more energy."

oil and even nuclear power are limited natural resources. technological development takes time, not just money, and it tends to create lots of new problems. why is this hard to understand?

[redcannon]

we could burn national currency and use the heat to produce steam and spin turbines? or, my favorite, make a small black hole and position it at the Lagrange point between the earth and the sun, then throw our trash in it. the resulting radiation could be used as an energy source.

or use positron-electron annihilation to gather gamma rays that could boil water into steam and spin turbines. or tap into an energy field in another dimension and use that energy.

comrades, all our problems are solved in physics.

except the political problems, of course

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:33 pm
or, my favorite, make a small black hole and position it at the Lagrange point between the earth and the sun, then throw our trash in it. the resulting radiation could be used as an energy source.
How?


or use positron-electron annihilation to gather gamma rays that could boil water into steam and spin turbines. or tap into an energy field in another dimension and use that energy.
:rolleyes: Any of that technology currently within our grasp?

[VeratheFastest]

The good news redcannon is that you can have an excellent career as a writer.
The bad news is I do not think what you are proposing is beyond science fiction.

What about all the talk about ethanol?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:54 pm
The good news redcannon is that you can have an excellent career as a writer.
The bad news is I do not think what you are proposing is beyond science fiction.
Oh some of it is theoretically possible, but I doubt it will be come about before the collapse of capitalism.


What about all the talk about ethanol?
What about it? Ethanol couldn't possibly take on all the current energy production, although it is a step in the right direction.

[VeratheFastest]

Where would the right direction be pointing towards?

I agree this is a very slow process. We have been relying on oil as a source of energy for hundreds of years.

And how do we know what we are aiming for is right? I remember watching this TV show which shown how in the '50s people thought that atomic energy was the way to go...didn't work out too well did it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:38 pm
Where would the right direction be pointing towards?
One in which we aren't relying on something that is running out fast


I agree this is a very slow process. We have been relying on oil as a source of energy for hundreds of years.

And how do we know what we are aiming for is right? I remember watching this TV show which shown how in the '50s people thought that atomic energy was the way to go...didn't work out too well did it?
I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I don' understand the analogy.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:52 pm

I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I don' understand the analogy.
even nuclear energy is finite. there's only so much uranium on earth, and then we're in the same situation we're in now. of course, we could send spacecraft to nearby asteroids and mine uranium from those, but that's more science fiction...

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by redcannon+April 14, 2007 01:41 pm--> (redcannon @ April 14, 2007 01:41 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 03:52 pm

I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I don' understand the analogy.
even nuclear energy is finite. there's only so much uranium on earth, and then we're in the same situation we're in now. of course, we could send spacecraft to nearby asteroids and mine uranium from those, but that's more science fiction... [/b]
Well I am not exactly an atomic physicist but Uranium is not the only source to be used in Nuclear Energy. There is thorium which to my knowledge is abandunt in SOuth and S.E Asia's and also from another source called Plutonium which is not available naturally but can be produced from the wastes of the nuclear reactors. The IAEA is more concerned about this element as it is mainly used in producing thermo nuclear weapons.

Of course they too don't last for ever. But the last long enough to be replaced by some thing more effiecient than them.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by g.ram+April 14, 2007 02:33 am--> (g.ram @ April 14, 2007 02:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:41 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 03:52 pm

I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I don' understand the analogy.
even nuclear energy is finite. there's only so much uranium on earth, and then we're in the same situation we're in now. of course, we could send spacecraft to nearby asteroids and mine uranium from those, but that's more science fiction...
Well I am not exactly an atomic physicist but Uranium is not the only source to be used in Nuclear Energy. There is thorium which to my knowledge is abandunt in SOuth and S.E Asia's and also from another source called Plutonium which is not available naturally but can be produced from the wastes of the nuclear reactors. The IAEA is more concerned about this element as it is mainly used in producing thermo nuclear weapons.

Of course they too don't last for ever. But the last long enough to be replaced by some thing more effiecient than them. [/b]
still, it feels as though we'd be placing ourselves in a vulnerable position just like we have now. For hundreds of years we knew fossil fuels wouldn't last forever, but only very recently have we begun to explore alternative energy sources. who says we won't become completely reliant on nuclear energy? besides, Plutonium is some pretty nasty stuff that takes a long time to go away.