The Emperor Has No Clothes

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
61

sofistek

I’ll try to be more specific with my previous question.  Is there a particular characteristic of high-speed trains that preclude them from operating primarily on renewable energy and existing above-ground resources?  Is it that the available energy would be insufficient, or perhaps the energy needed is not in the right form?  So far you’re only telling me that renewable energy isn’t limitless and cite that there are high energy and resource costs associated with operating the train and building the infrastructure, but it doesn’t help me determine its overall feasibility if you can’t cite specific data that demonstrates why they exceed the constraints of renewable energy sources and existing materials (raw and recycled).  I can see parts of the world and situations where such trains would be impractical (not enough population or available renewable power resources), but making a blanket statement that high-speed trains, in all cases, are unsustainable is premature without any data to back it up. 

From reading this post and your subsequent ones, I see that while you talk about sustainability, you’re really making an argument for localization.  Yes localization has many benefits and I agree that shifting more towards localization will be necessary for a sustainable economy and society (absent the unlikely discovery of some new abundant energy source).  But while localization aids in sustainability, it is does not have to be a requirement for sustainability in all facets of our lives.  The fact is it’s not an all-or-nothing game, but rather is a trade-off.  Building and operating high-speed train systems will necessarily involve consuming more of the available pool of renewable resources and raw materials, and we’d have to analyze that option and decide whether the advantage of better mobility is worth what we’d have to give up.  Perhaps it would mean having to reduce our average household electricity consumption by some percentage, or live in smaller homes, or consume less produce grown in far-away warm places, etc.  Who knows.  Maybe we’ll see it as worth the cost or maybe we won’t; it’s not a matter of right or wrong, but rather where we want to place our priorities in allocating available resources.  You say we need to consider each thing in terms of sustainability, yet oddly enough here you just assume high-speed trains are unsustainable.  I’m not trying to pick on you, but again you seem to be operating from a position of belief, more specifically the belief that anything that involves high-speed mass or personal transportation by its very nature must be unsustainable and of no value.  It’s clear that in your eyes private cars and high-speed trains are symbolic of BAU and inextricably tied to it, but that’s simply a mental association that you have chosen to make.  Personal automobiles, high-speed trains, airplanes… sustainability does not preclude such things, it simply places limits (in some cases perhaps severe limits) on the extent to which society can make use of them. 

(ed. for bad grammar)

  • Nickbert
62

Ok, Nickbert. What are the necessary conditions for sustainability?
That resources are not consumed beyond their renewal rates and that the consumption of resources (our behaviour) doesn’t result in the degradation of our habitat.

You’re proposing (or positing) that high speed trains, and supporting infrastructure, can be built and operated using just renewable energy and whatever resources we’ve already extracted, and without adversely impacting our environment. I’m not aware of a full environmental impact assessment for high speed trains so I can’t really comment as to whether your proposition is feasible. So I suppose I’d have to go with speculation.

So these are some of the questions that would need to be asked:

  • Can the desired quantity of HSTs be built, maintained and operated using only renewable energy and existing extracted resources? I doubt it but would be happy to see the figures. This includes the track infrastructure and stations.
  • Can the renewable energy used to support the above be delivered using only renewable energy and existing above ground resources? Again, I haven't seen the figures. Are there any?
  • What is the purpose of HSTs? I assume that building an HST system would be considered a waste of resources if no-one, or no goods, travelled in them. Does that seem reasonable? If so, there must be a reason for them. There must also be a worthwhile level of use (e.g. building the infrastructure for one train a month, would not be worthwhile, as the resources and energy employed would probably exceed the useful work so obtained). So one would expect a fairly well used service. Why would we be transporting large numbers of goods and people at high speed between non-local points?
The answers to these questions might give us a hint as to whether HSTs are sustainable or whether they allow unsustainable behaviour to be sustained a bit longer.

If we have got to the stage where no new non-renewable resources are consumed, and renewable resources are only consumed at or below their renewal rates, and our consumption of those resources are not degrading our habitat, then it’s hard to see why we would want or need to transport people and goods very quickly over large distances.

Richard Heinberg (a Post Carbon Institute colleague of Chris’s) recently published a report about EROEI (Searching for a Miracle). He wrote that it is the excess energy that supports a society. In hunter/gatherer societies, about 10 calories of food was obtained for 1 calorie of effort. Those extra 9 calories went into supporting a fairly simple (though very leisurely) society. Today, our energy comes from food and other energy sources. Food is way down on the EROEI scale, with something like 10 calories being expended for every food calorie obtained. That deficit has to be made up for by other energy sources, that have a very high EROEI (like fossil fuels), in order to support the complex societies we have today. It takes a lot of energy to whisk people and goods at high speed over long distances. If those goods are food, it’s probably an unsustainable method of delivery, in terms of food (i.e. more calories expended than the food contains). Can the purpose of the HST overcome such profligacy, without cheap forms of energy that have a high EROEI?

In Heinberg’s report, he looked at various forms of energy, including renewables. Hydro has an EROEI of between 11 and 267 but is pretty much maxed out in the US, and some other countries. So some hydro has the potential to support a complex society but would have to be scaled up substantially, which is not possible in many countries, and preferably at the better EROEI levels. Unfortunately, large scale hydro destroys habitats. Wind power came in at an average EROEI of 18. Whether that is enough to overcome the food calorie deficit and support a complex society is debatable. Also, wind would also have to be scaled up enormously and may have adverse environmental impacts at such scales. Solar has the poorest EROEI ratings, at the moment (about between 3.75 and 10). Remember that the hunter/gatherer society needed an EROEI of 10 to support it. Remember, also, that all energy inputs to earth are currently employed in supporting the energy and life systems of earth. Diversion of (or additions to) that energy, may have adverse impacts. In nature, you can’t do just one thing.

So, I suppose you could say I’m basing my posts on beliefs, to a degree, but so are the proponents of HST. Until I see the figures and impact assessments (as well as answers to what the HST’s intended purpose is), I would remain opposed to HSTs on the basis of what I’ve read on this and related issues, because they have no place in a sustainable society.

63

Sofistek,
I see your passion on this thread and can at least understand it. It isn’t much fun when it is obvious that the world is being ran over a bridgeless ravine at high speed by madmen. It is even less of a joy when you find yourself aboard it, wide awake and screaming out to deaf ears while the majority of passengers seem to be sleep walking into the abyss, unaware, uninspired and dreaming of a future of prosperity where there is to you and I, none.

There are many ways to resolve this upcoming global smash, but it is born upon those who have the controls in their hands to have a plan. If this thread could be the mouth piece, the common man’s voice of reasoning to all those that should be listening, it would be a pleasure to be a part of it. However, so far, this is but wishful thinking. Here, there are simply other people, each as powerless as the last, trying to make some formal plan as to what can be done.

Nickbert doesn’t have the funds to build a high speed train set in full human scale complete with bridges and stations any more than you and I. I only wish we did. Why do I wish I did? Because some 65% of oil used in the U.S is for transport. That includes trucks at 4 miles to the gallon for all those 3000 mile caesar salads and ‘just in time’ food supply to quel the high possibilities of the ‘three meals from anarchy’ I fear at the high end of this madness if nothing is done. We need something of a transport system even if it were not high speed, and trains tick the boxes where the road has proven unsustainable.

It is the 54% of yearly American taxes that are paid into the pot for the war machine. The $1.4 trillion that could put infrastrucure back into the U.S over time if it were possible. It is a bloated government that has tripled in scale over 30 years. It is a banking system far out gunning sustainable wages with bonus’s accounting for billions per year even in lean times and unemployement past 22%.

The American track and train infrastructure has been compared to Bulgaria’s. Bulgaria is edging toward the third world. I know, I’ve lived there.

The high speed train that Dr Martenson aspires to is some what of an ideal; a metaphor; an example. What would you choose as your own example?

There are still 5 million barrels of oil extracted within the shores of the United States every day. There are a further 15 plus million barrels imported into the United States from other countries by hook or by crook every day. Without the Dollar as a pegged currency in the future, the U.S will not be able to print its way of what ever it thinks its government can. This whole process is utterly unsustainable. Where then does America continue its global rape of resources without the dollar/oil controls it assumes it can maintain. China and Russia appear to feel otherwise …

Cost Of Our New High-Speed Trains Is Dwarfed By The Tax Dollars We Waste In Our Afganistan And Iraq “Wars”

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/01/31/cost-of-our-new-high-speed-trains-is-dwarfed-by-the-tax-dollars-we-waste-in-our-afghanistan-and-iraq-wars/

Tribute Paid In Oil - Hugo Salinas Price

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/salinasprice/2008/0620.html

U.S Debt Clock (In Real Time)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Best,

Paul

 

64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

65

sofistek-
Your first two questions are pretty much the same ones I was asking.  I haven’t seen the figures either, but until I do I’m keeping my options open and will neither fully dismiss or endorse HST’s as a sustainable mass transportation option.  As for the third question, the purpose is improved mobility and delivery of goods or services that are time-sensitive.  For example an HST could widen access to better work opportunities, medical care, distant family, and facilitate delivery of time-sensitive goods.  The level of importance we each place on these will vary of course, but most would find at least SOME value in each.  It may be ultimately decided that the benefits may or may not be considered worth the cost, but to imply HST’s would have no value to anyone is incorrect.  You seem to have a strong bias against high speed transportation in general, but I for one place great value in being able to reach a hospital quickly in an emergency, or having the ability to quickly move resources and people in the case of disaster. 

I looked up Heinberg’s paper and sure enough it cites 10 calories of food for every 1 calorie spent (an EROEI of 10) for hunter-gatherer groups.  That seems rather high given the EROEI of 1.2 quoted for medieval society in the Crash Course Energy section, but I’ll entertain that figure for purposes of the discussion.  If both of these numbers are correct, it makes one ask what would make people exchange a more leisurely lifestyle for one of harder work in an agrarian or city life?  Perhaps a more stable food supply, better security (strength in numbers), longer lifespans (historically for some if not all), and better shelter… all are advantages that differences in EROEI alone can’t explain since these existed in civilizations with a lower EROEI.  So then comparing our situation to a hunter-gatherer society in terms of only EROEI is an apples-oranges comparison.  Unless perhaps one of those EROEI numbers are wrong.  I have to say given the harsh and uncertain nature of hunter-gatherer life, I find it plausible their EROEI is actually much lower than 10; perhaps that number might be more representative of a ‘good year’ in resource abundant areas.

[quote]

So, I suppose you could say I’m basing my posts on beliefs, to a degree, but so are the proponents of HST. Until I see the figures and impact assessments (as well as answers to what the HST’s intended purpose is), I would remain opposed to HSTs on the basis of what I’ve read on this and related issues, because they have no place in a sustainable society.  [/quote]

Most of your post seemed well-thought-out, but the last sentence was out of place.  Most of your post talks about the need to analyze what we’re getting out of an HST and what the cost is, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but it ends with a purely subjective belief-based statement that contradicts all the logical statements you made before it.  If you’ve already decided it’s unsustainable without all the data, why bother analyzing the costs and feasibility in the first place? 

Now I don’t doubt there might be HST proponents out there who are operating from a position of belief rather than fact, but that’s no excuse for you to do the same.  You could very well turn out to be right and maybe HST’s won’t be long-term sustainable, but wouldn’t you rather be right because you did some research and thought it through, rather than just guessed?  Just keep an open mind and follow where the data leads…

  • Nickbert
66

Interesting documentary Vanityfox451. Thanks for posting.
As regards the HST debate, as in so many areas, in the absence of absolutely clear information, attitudes can relate more to basic personality types rather than to the insufficient facts, i.e. some people are more pessimistic, some more optimistic. In spite of his deep understanding of the seriousness of the general situation, it seems to me that Chris is an optimist. (I think he might even have written that somewhere, but am not sure.)

67

Nickbert,[quote=nickbert]For example an HST could widen access to better work opportunities, medical care, distant family, and facilitate delivery of time-sensitive goods.  The level of importance we each place on these will vary of course, but most would find at least SOME value in each.  It may be ultimately decided that the benefits may or may not be considered worth the cost, but to imply HST’s would have no value to anyone is incorrect.[/quote]In a BAU situation, of course HSTs will be viewed as having some value. The purposes for an HST that you see appear, to me, to be just BAU, or an extension of BAU. Of course it would be nice to see distant family members but why are they distant? Because of BAU, Why would people want to continue to travel such distances at high speed? For pleasure. What makes goods time-sensitive? Probably trying to reach an expanded market for perishable goods (BAU). Medical care is a very emotional subject but I don’t think building an HST infrastructure so that the odd kidney can be whisked to a waiting patient, or the odd patient can get specialised treatment in a hurry, is a good use of resources, from a wider society perspective.[quote=nickbert]You seem to have a strong bias against high speed transportation in general[/quote]No. I have a strong bias against unsustainable behaviour. If HSTs can be shown to be sustainable, within a sustainable society, I’d be all for them (and I’m not kidding) but I don’t let my desires get in the way of critical thinking.[quote=nickbert]I looked up Heinberg’s paper and sure enough it cites 10 calories of food for every 1 calorie spent (an EROEI of 10) for hunter-gatherer groups.  That seems rather high given the EROEI of 1.2 quoted for medieval society in the Crash Course Energy section[/medieval society wasn’t a hunter gatherer society. It now seems to be well accepted that hunter gatherer societies were simple but with a high proportion of leisure time, that could only be supported because it was easy to get food, most of the time.[quote=nickbert]it makes one ask what would make people exchange a more leisurely lifestyle for one of harder work in an agrarian or city life?[/quote]Good question. Of course, people don’t have that choice now but I think more recent examples of hunter gatherer societies have found pressures of the surrounding civilization made it more difficult to continue and, in some cases, the diseases brought by civilised peoples devastated their societies. Perhaps agrarian technology seemed like a good idea at the time and seemed to gather momentum, possibly because it placed great power in the hands of the few, who then had a vested interest in the continuance of the system.[quote=nickbert]So then comparing our situation to a hunter-gatherer society in terms of only EROEI is an apples-oranges comparison.[/quote]I don’t think so. It gives a kind of base line for the energy needed to maintain societies. If a society as simple as the hunter gatherer one required an EROEI of 10, then that could be regarded as the minimum EROEI required, since societies probably don’t come much simpler. To support a more complex society, much higher EROEIs are needed. Is it possible to achieve a higher EROEI on just renewables (and without degrading the environment)? Doubtful. It seems reasonable to suppose that our current complex society requires an EROEI that fossil fuels provide and that it can’t continue without those fuels.[quote=nickbert]I have to say given the harsh and uncertain nature of hunter-gatherer life, I find it plausible their EROEI is actually much lower than 10[/quote]It may be uncertain but I don’t think research shows it to be harsh. It was a leisurely lifestyle where there was/is nothing that really resembled work, nor was disease a big factor. So all that leisure required a fairly high EROEI.[quote=nickbert]but it ends with a purely subjective belief-based statement that contradicts all the logical statements you made before it.[/quote]No it doesn’t, though it is subjective. It’s my current view and can be replaced with fresh information. If someone can show that HSTs can be sustainable, within a sustainable society, then I’d readily change my view, otherwise I’d be an idiot. I must admit that it is purely opinion that buidling and maintaining a safe high speed rail and station infrastructure that can whisk heavy machines, loaded with goods and people across vast distances at high speed seems like it would have a poor EROEI, and be incompatible with a sustainable society. At the moment, that seems like a reasonable position.
Remember that Chris’s mention of it was purely subjective also and had no data associated with it. Later, he indicated that it would be symbolic. Do you agree with him, subjectively? How about objectively?

68

[quote=firefly]Interesting documentary Vanityfox451. Thanks for posting.
As regards the HST debate, as in so many areas, in the absence of absolutely clear information, attitudes can relate more to basic personality types rather than to the insufficient facts, i.e. some people are more pessimistic, some more optimistic. In spite of his deep understanding of the seriousness of the general situation, it seems to me that Chris is an optimist. (I think he might even have written that somewhere, but am not sure.)[/quote]

Oh yes, Chris is an optimist. Otherwise, why would he do what he is doing? He’s doing a great job, too.

69

[quote=sofistek]
In a BAU situation, of course HSTs will be viewed as having some value. The purposes for an HST that you see appear, to me, to be just BAU, or an extension of BAU. Of course it would be nice to see distant family members but why are they distant? Because of BAU, Why would people want to continue to travel such distances at high speed? For pleasure. What makes goods time-sensitive? Probably trying to reach an expanded market for perishable goods (BAU). Medical care is a very emotional subject but I don’t think building an HST infrastructure so that the odd kidney can be whisked to a waiting patient, or the odd patient can get specialised treatment in a hurry, is a good use of resources, from a wider society perspective. [/quote]

If I’m reading you correctly you actually do find HST has some value OUTSIDE a BAU situation too, but that you judge the costs far outweigh the benefits, correct?  If so, then it’s probably pointless to take this particular line of discussion further as it starts getting into our own personal priorities, and all that can be said is that it has some non-zero value to society that we each value to greater or lesser degrees.

Now how exactly are you defining BAU - Business As Usual?  The reason I’m asking is that in as far as this conversation has gone it seems for yourself to be a pretty wide-reaching category with an obviously negative connotation, and much of your argument against HST’s is that it’s associated with BAU.  The way you use the term it seems to be equivalent to ‘unsustainable’, correct? 

Again, the medieval societies are quoted as having a surplus of 1.2, and yet they have far more societal complexity of the posited hunter-gatherer EROEI of 10.  If EROEI is highly proportional to societal complexity, how can this be?  The things that come to my mind is that either the hunter-gatherer and/or medieval society EROEI’s are incorrect, or EROEI by itself can’t be used to gauge the relative complexity of a society.  If I had to venture an opinion, I’d say it is some of both.  One conclusion we could draw is the following: how the surplus is spent is just as, if not more, important than the amount of surplus exists in defining what general level of societal complexity can exist.  Most of us could probably agree that much of our current surplus is wasted on largely non-productive efforts or things that give no long-term benefit… if that’s true, perhaps our current societal complexity falls far short of its potential.  Likewise if the hunter-gatherer estimates are correct it assumes they do the same thing, except instead of blowing the surplus on producing and buying cheap junk they, as you alluded to, spend it on leisure time and recreation.  I think that even medieval societies could have achieved significantly greater complexity than they did with their low EROEI of 1.2 if they had not been so prone to war with their neighbors or had massive wealth disparities favoring the nobility, church, and ruling elite.

Actually I don’t think a HST can have an EROEI, since it is a use of surplus resources rather than an energy producer.

Certainly it is reasonable to have some predisposition or leaning based on limited knowledge… sometimes we have to make do with what info we have at the time.  It is my opinion though that staying a little flexible in our thinking and remaining open to all possibilities would make this world a lot better.  A little uncertainty is a small price to pay for opening doors to new possibilities.

Well, subjectively I mostly disagree with Chris because I don’t place much value in symbolism and find that quality to be somewhat lacking, and I see the potential value mostly in the tangible systems themselves.  Symbolism is useful but also fluid and temporary, and I prefer something more permanent and quantifiable than symbolism.  Objectively, however, I can see how many other people are different from me in that respect and see how that symbolism is often more important in changing their attitudes than a cost-benefit analysis would be.  So objectively I would be in partial agreement with Chris, because while I know symbolism can be fleeting, I also know it can be a powerful force in many people’s lives.  This is somewhat besides the point given the original discussion though, isn’t it?  The discussion is on the feasibility of HST’s in a sustainable setting, not on the value I place on its symbolism. 

  • Nickbert
70

[quote=nickbert]If I’m reading you correctly you actually do find HST has some value OUTSIDE a BAU situation too, but that you judge the costs far outweigh the benefits, correct?[/quote]No. Obvioiusly, given certain types of societal arrangements (such as our current unsustainable society), the HST probably have a value but I’m interested in constructing a society that is sustainable. Currently, I see no value in HST, within a sustainable society. Inter community contacts can occur with far simpler transport.[quote=nickbert]Now how exactly are you defining BAU - Business As Usual?[/quote]BAU is a society and economy that has a wide range of specialised skill sets, many of which could be regarded as non-productive, aspirations to have more (i.e. never satisfied with what one has), the motive to profit from selling other people stuff they don’t need or, really, want (and profit drives unsustainable growth), no regard for resource and environmental limits, the feeling of entitlement to travel anywhere, anytime (and the desire to do so), and so on. Changing the mode of long distance travel doesn’t alter BAU, though some modes will be more resource efficient than others.[quote=nickbert][quote=nickbert]Again, the medieval societies are quoted as having a surplus of 1.2, and yet they have far more societal complexity of the posited hunter-gatherer EROEI of 10.[/quote]Hmm, maybe. But how complex was it? I’m no expert but I think it was a fairly simple society - there were a few “haves” and all the rest were “have-nots”, with almost no opportunity to move to the “haves”. Wasn’t it a fairly dour existence for most? Quite different from a hunter/gather society, where everyone had the skills and means to survive, without relying on others, though tribes did commune.[quote=nickbert]how the surplus is spent is just as, if not more, important than the amount of surplus exists in defining what general level of societal complexity can exist.[/quote]I don’t think it’s more, or as, important, but it’s certainly a factor. If the complexity is concentrated in a small proportion of the population, then lower energy surplus may be required than if complexity is spread evenly throughout society. But, yes, more efficient energy use will help lower the energy needed. However, it is not just energy use that defines limits.[quote=nickbert]I think that even medieval societies could have achieved significantly greater complexity than they did with their low EROEI of 1.2 if they had not been so prone to war with their neighbors or had massive wealth disparities favoring the nobility, church, and ruling elite.[/quote]I don’t know. However, should we aspire to a gruelling existence, with power over others held by the few, or a more egalitarian, pleasurable existence, with plenty of leisure time?[quote=nickbert][quote=nickbert]Actually I don’t think a HST can have an EROEI, since it is a use of surplus resources rather than an energy producer.[/quote]One could add up all the energy of running an HST network and then compare that against the productive work so enabled. It’s a difficult one. I think it may only be possible to do an overall audit: ultimately, the energy humans get is the food they eat. That gives us the energy to do work. If all of the energy expended by humans exceeds the energy they all obtain from food, then that is unsustainable unless the extra energy is provided from an inexhaustible source and the total energy in not consumed in a way that degrades our biosphere. This is, essentially how the EROEI of hunter/gatherer societies is measured but it’s more difficult with our kind of complex society, or even any complex sustainable society that we may aspire to.
I never thought it was easy and I certainly don’t have all the answers on how a sustainable society should be organised but HSTs seem to be, largely, a consumption of energy that adds to the energy needed to obtain our food and so tends to the unsustainable, rather than the sustainable. HSTs could be part of the leisure side of a sustainable society, provided there is sustainable excess energy to operate and use it. I think that’s extremely doubtful and so should, at best, be put near the back of the list of projects that a society, which aspires to be sustainable, should be investing in.[quote=nickbert]Certainly it is reasonable to have some predisposition or leaning based on limited knowledge… sometimes we have to make do with what info we have at the time.  It is my opinion though that staying a little flexible in our thinking and remaining open to all possibilities would make this world a lot better.  A little uncertainty is a small price to pay for opening doors to new possibilities.[/quote]I’m not sure what you’re saying here. That we should invest in anything that seems like a good idea until someone can conclusively show that it isn’t?[quote=nickbert]This is somewhat besides the point given the original discussion though, isn’t it?  The discussion is on the feasibility of HST’s in a sustainable setting, not on the value I place on its symbolism.[/quote]Well, yes, but the idea of it as a symbol was probably something that some regard as a benefit that outweighs the cost or its possible unsustainability.

71

So the ability to get a dying loved one to a full-service hospital or medical facility quickly has zero value to you?  Getting people and resources somewhere quickly to an emergency for disaster response and saving lives has zero value to you?  Harsh.  Situations like these where mobility plays a major factor will exist in EVERY society sustainable or otherwise, and high speed transportation (any kind, doesn’t have to be HSTs) is one of the best ways to address these concerns.  Does the capability of fast transportation to address these concerns truly have zero value to you?  Or do you in fact find some measurable value in it, but feel thus far the costs are too high and outweigh that value?  (Or maybe you haven’t given it a lot of thought yet?)

NONE of the qualities you’ve given in your definition of ‘BAU’ are defining characteristic of HST’s.  HST’s do not require for their existence a profit motive, a desire for unsustainable growth, total disregard for resource and environmental limitations, feelings of entitlement for unlimited travel, or large numbers of non-productive specialized skillsets.  HST’s are a tool, nothing more.  Some tools are right for the job and some aren’t, but projecting a purely subjective association on what is no more than a tool is counter-productive and clouds the ability to ascertain its true value.  Wouldn’t you prefer it if the people who had bought Hummers primarily because they projected purely subjective qualities like “coolness” or “bad-ass” or  “chick-magnet” onto them had instead discarded that mindset and bought what best suited their actual needs?  I bet there would be FAR fewer Hummers on the road now.

There were masons, farmers, blacksmiths, tailors, tanners, soldiers, miners, sailors, merchants, lumberjacks, clergy, nobles, knights, courtesans, cobblers, etc… the list goes.  That’s very complex compared to hunter-gatherer lives where most in the tribe have largely overlapping skillsets.  And yes unfortunately many lived hard and unpleasant lives, but that’s irrelevant to complexity.  Social complexity is independent of how content or miserable the masses are. 

Huge disparities of power and wealth have been all too common in the majority of complex societies, but not all of them.  You also seem to have a very idealized notion of hunter-gatherer living.  Try it for a year.  Up here in Alaska there are still some people who live a subsistence lifestyle supporting themselves primarily on their surroundings, and I’ve known some that have done it.  The lifestyle is not without merit, but it’s not as leisurely or pleasurable as you make it out to be.

It only adds to the energy needed to obtain our food IF we use it for food transport, which is probably one of the least cost-effective uses for such a system (even today I think the majority of food travels by slower sea, rail, or truck transport).  Otherwise it is merely a way to spend surplus energy.  It may give other benefits that enhance quality of life, but that is separate from EROEI.

So here you are saying that HST’s could potentially be a part of sustainable society, though optional.  This is all I’ve been trying to say the whole time.  I’m not advocating the construction and implementation of a nationwide HST network here, I’m simply saying that the possibilities merit further study and consideration, and dismissing them prematurely doesn’t do anyone any good. 

No, I’m saying if you judge something as impossible or a bad idea before exploring the available data, you close yourself to possibilities that have potential to benefit yourself or society.

  • Nickbert
72

Hi guys
I hate to butt in …you seem to be having a grand time. But I have a link that may make things a little clearer if not muddier, or both at the same time.

This ia a youtube presentation by Susan Brumdieck (one pretty sharp lady). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KOmTlWJn0c&feature=related.

She is working in Christ Church on Transition Town modeling. Interesting that she suggests that everything you need be within oh say a twenty minute walk. In other words decentralize. No more BAU. No more suburbia etc

G’day

V

73

Marc on CNBC today.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35444726/site/14081545

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDW9p-K2VUE

74

[quote=nickbert]So the ability to get a dying loved one to a full-service hospital or medical facility quickly has zero value to you?  Getting people and resources somewhere quickly to an emergency for disaster response and saving lives has zero value to you?  Harsh.[/quote]I really don’t see an HST network being built for these potential and one-off situations. Saving lives is an emotional issue that is not subject to rationality, so it’s pointless my answering the question. People die all the time. If it was my life, or the life of a loved one, on the line, then, of course, I’d feel different, which is why strategic decisions shouldn’t be made in those situations.[quote=nickbert]NONE of the qualities you’ve given in your definition of ‘BAU’ are defining characteristic of HST’s.[/quote]Apart from those hopefully rare situations, HSTs give people something more than they need. It may not require a profit motive but why would society invest in something that costs a lot and has only limited occasional value? The HST may be just a tool, but it’s built with a purpose. Let’s construct a sustainable society first and then see if HSTs are needed.[quote=nickbert]There were masons, farmers, blacksmiths, tailors, tanners, soldiers, miners, sailors, merchants, lumberjacks, clergy, nobles, knights, courtesans, cobblers, etc… the list goes.  That’s very complex compared to hunter-gatherer lives[/quote]True. Can you remind me where this 1.2 EROEI comes from? I can’t find it in Heinberg’s piece, though the figure does seem familiar. As Heinberg said, “As mentioned earlier, if the net energy profit available to society declines, a higher percentage of society’s resources will have to be devoted directly to obtaining energy, thus increasing its cost. This means that less energy will be available for all of the activities that energy makes possible.” It seems difficult to see that complexity (though I still think it was fairly simple, with complexity concentrated) being maintained by an excess energy of  only 20% of the energy expended to obtain the energy. With that level of spare energy, the medieval society can’t have been complex in a widespread way.[quote=nickbert]You also seem to have a very idealized notion of hunter-gatherer living.  Try it for a year.[/quote]That kind of lifestyle is impossible where I live. Even if it wasn’t, trying it for a year is a poor suggestion. I don’t have an idealised notion of that lifestyle. I’m just offering opinions on what I’ve read. There were uncertainties, but when you have the skills, the freedom to roam and an abundance of food all around, that takes almost no energy to obtain, then it’s likely to be a fairly leisurely existence with plenty of time to enjoy nature and life. But this is not really about the hunter/gatherer life, it’s about whether HSTs can be part of a sustainable system.[quote=nickbert]It only adds to the energy needed to obtain our food IF we use it for food transport[/quote]You misunderstand me. Ultimately, the energy humans need to live is obtained from food, so everything we do is, in a way, energy expended in, ultimately, obtaining food. To put it another way, then, HSTs represent a consumption of energy, which is taken from the excess energy, if any, that society obtains after subtracting the energy required to obtain energy. So the question would be whether that energy can really be spared or whether that energy really ends up contributing useful work to society and whether the consumption of that energy is done without degrading our biosphere.[quote=nickbert]So here you are saying that HST’s could potentially be a part of sustainable society, though optional.[/quote]Only if it was sustainable. I may see no value in HSTs but I wouldn’t be against its being built, and may even take advantage of it, if it didn’t make the society that operated it unsustainable. That’s what is certainly not clear and why I’m astounded at Chris’s suggestion that it would be an excellent use of resources. By the way, I don’t think it merits further study, until we have a plan for base sustainability.[quote=nickbert]No, I’m saying if you judge something as impossible or a bad idea before exploring the available data, you close yourself to possibilities that have potential to benefit yourself or society.[/quote]What is the available data? I think we always make decisions on incomplete data, since it can rarely be obtained. Chris offered no data as to why he was taken by HSTs, so I can only judge on what it appears to be.

75

[quote=V]She is working in Christ Church on Transition Town modeling. Interesting that she suggests that everything you need be within oh say a twenty minute walk. In other words decentralize. No more BAU. No more suburbia etc[/quote]Sounds reasonable. Hopefully, sustainable societies can afford (in sustainability terms) to have occasional contacts between those walkable communities. Perhaps by cycle, perhaps by train.

76

Sorry but saving lives is not inherently or always an emotional issue, and it’s just as subject to rational thought as deciding what kind of vegetables to grow in your backyard.  For example, there are a host of purely rational and strategic reasons to help save Haitian lives right now, such as forestalling the spread of diseases which could affect our interests, or encouraging global goodwill that would yield diplomatic and foreign relations benefits.  In the context of this line of discussion, rational is a matter of knowing what your priorities are, and then acting according to those priorities.  An emotional or irrational decision would be acting counter to your own personal priorities due to emotional interference.  But if you don’t want to answer my question that is your prerogative.

The reason I’m focusing on your use of the term ‘BAU’ is because you have been stating repeatedly that HSTs are Business As Usual and using that as one of your primary arguments against their use.  Yet it doesn’t fit in your own definition that you yourself outlined, so the whole BAU argument you present is invalid.  Furthermore, in the above paragraph you are saying that an HST has value, though limited and occasional.  Yet in your post previous to this one you stated: “Currently, I see no value in HST, within a sustainable society.”  I’m not seeing much consistency in your arguments.

That EROEI of 1.2 comes from the Crash Course, chapter 17b: “If, instead, these people were able to produce just 1.2 calories for every 1 calorie expended, then they’d have the exact energy balance that existed in medieval times. This skinny 20% surplus allotment of energy is sufficient to allow rich hierarchies to form, job specializations to develop, and large works of architecture to be built.”

You are confusing EROEI with what is done with the surplus.  Wiki’s definition: “EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), ERoEI, or EROI (Energy Return On Investment), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.”  It describes the efficiency of a process… if it is not used in any part of that process, how can it have anything to do with how the EROEI of that process is calculated? 

In your first post you said you were unequivocably against HST’s being built, yet here you say you are not.  Have you changed your mind then?  And you say here you see no value in HSTs, but if you say you might opt to take advantage of it then you obviously DO find at least a small value in it otherwise you would have no incentive to use it. 

  • Nickbert
77

sofistek-
You know what, on second thought I probably should have saved us all the trouble of my last post, because I think we’re rapidly hitting a point of diminishing returns here.  The shifting positions in some of your statements is telling me that you’re probably still digesting all the information we’ve been talking about and comparing/contrasting/reconciling that with currently-held opinions and beliefs.  This is not a bad thing (rather it shows you’re probably making extra effort to put thought into it), it just means it’s probably time for a break.  Feel free to respond to the previous post and I will promise to read it, but at this point I don’t see the value in continuing past that.  Plus this tangential topic is probably overstaying its welcome in this thread. 

I commend your passion in wanting to create a sustainable society where quality of life matters, and I’m sure if more people had that desire this world would be much better off…

  • Nickbert
78

[quote=nickbert]I think we’re rapidly hitting a point of diminishing returns here.[/quote]I think this often happens in this kind of debate. All sides tend to try and find ways to make what they previously wrote still be meaningful and rational. One doesn’t, even in anonymity, want to seem stupid. That’s probably true for me, also, although I will say that I’ve changed my mind on a few big things in the past, so at least I think I’m open to new views.
Whilst,strictly speaking, any particular tool is not BAU, rather how it is used defines whether it is BAU, the purpose in building the tool and how it’s used most certainly can be judged against BAU concepts. It’s just very hard for me to envisage an HST newtork that was not built to be used in a BAU way. Sure, there may be some uses of it that are orthogonal to BAU (or at least appear to be) but I’d be looking at the overwhelming use that it is likely to be put to (plus the purpose of building it) and I just can’t get away from its being a symbol of BAU (and a tool supporting BAU).

As you’ve illustrated, EROEI is a tricky beast. I thought RIchard Heinberg had it nailed down, but his PCI fellow Fellow, Chris Martenson, seems to wildly converge from Richard. Both can’t be right and I feel they must be describing very different views of EROEI. For example, suppose (for argument’s sake) that the peasants of medieval times produced all of the energy (growing food and chopping trees, say). I would assume that not every second of every day of the life of a peasant was spent producing that energy, so the energy must produce a surplus for even the producers of the energy to use. If a peasant farmer spent two thirds of the day in the fields, then what percentage of the energy produced does he consume, for his time and work in the fields, for his small amount of leisure time, for sleeping, for having and supporting children, and so on? Would’t that peasant need that surplus 20% just for himself and his family that didn’t work (for some small number of years) on producing the energy? And then to support other trades and nobles that didn’t produce any energy, it just seems unlikely that the EROEI was 1.2. I couldn’t find an email address for Richard but have emailed both the Post Carbon Institute and Chris’s site here to see if the apparent conflict between the two statements can be resolved.

Yes, I want to create a sustainable society, because I have children and because I know that unsustainable societies, by definition, can’t be sustained. I’d rather they ended in a controlled manner, no matter how traumatic that might be for many, than they ended in uncontrolled collapse. So a transition to sustainability is preferable to the alternative. Wouildn’t you agree?