We’re Not Going To Make It…

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, ,
41

One indisputable conclusion is we have to use more human power and much less manufactured (for lack of a better term) energy, for there is no method of generating energy without harmful side effects.
Every other life form on the planet is limited by it's own energy.   It's past time that we do the same.  For the past 150 years the human race has been the beneficiary of a once-in-a-species-lifetime-jackpot of fossil fuels, and all the other ways of generating energy that fossil fuels enabled.  We've blown through much of that jackpot, and the consequences of doing so are reaching critical levels and tipping points.

Relying on our own energy will result in a vastly lower standard of living, to the point of requiring great sacrifice.  In practically all areas of our lives.  Our radius of travel will be significantly reduced.  We will experience a lot more physical discomfort.  The quantity and variety of food will shrink.  Many people won't be able to cope.

But…with changing priorities and the right attitude, our quality of life doesn't have to suffer, and in many ways could improve.  That's if we make this shift fast enough.  And if it's not already too late.  Not sure why anyone would realistically believe the former is likely, or that the latter is not, but it seems irresponsible, inexcusable and just plain evil not to try.

Why there hasn't been a movement to switch from cars to mopeds, scooters, e-bikes and bicycles is beyond me.  Never mind climate change, our dependence on foreign oil, or the likely oil price spikes/suppIy problems coming our way, I don't see anyway around the prospect that a majority of Americans are going to be financially unable to keep their cars in the not too distant future (with or without higher oil prices).  Whether that happens in 5, 10 or 20 years is anybody's guess, but we aren't going to make such a transition over night. And we'll never be able to afford mass transit for the masses.   

IMO switching over to 2 and 3 wheel vehicles should be a top priority.  It won't be pretty if millions have to give up their traditional cars without a feasible, quick to implement plan B.

42
But to contain global warming to a figure less than 2°C nations would have to ramp up renewable investment by 2028 to the annual equivalent of 485,000 such wind turbines.
That's about 2.5 million megawatts total or 2.5 terawatts (trillion watts or TW) per year of capacity.  Assuming turbines operate at about 30% of capacity on average, that's an increase in power generated of about 0.8 TW every year.  The only problem is that one study that has actually looked at how many turbines we could have concluded that we'll be limited to 1-3 TW total energy production.  At that rate of installation, we're at the limit in a few years.
43

I was responding to someone who said there were 2 choices, wood fired hypocaust ( as the Romans used) or natural gas furnace.
There are more than those 2 ways to heat.

I live where it is cold in the winter, I live on top of a mountain. I know that we use too much enervy to het right now. SO, the first thing to do is to air seal and insulate and need less added heat. I know our spaces we are heating are too big. When the space is smaller, it needs less heat. I know we need to focus on heating hte person and not the space – so, we wear things like used cashmere sweaters and wool hats inside so we dont need to add as much heat. I know I do not need to blast heat at night while we are asleep, although that does make it tough to get out of a warm bed in the morning.

" I'm thinking you don't live very far North.  As Al said, do the math.

There isn't enough wood to replace the energy supplies we are currently using.

In the book "Collapse," deforestation was frequently one of the last acts of a collapsing society.

What's the point in surviving, if we cut down all the trees and drive all the animals into extinction? "

This is a common thought – But, we do not and can not go on using what we do now. We need to reduce what we are using, maybe doing somethings as I outlined above. We actually have to change our lifestyles and how we live.

Then, it is not so much energy that is added to stay warm. A radient heat source, like a wood stove, warms the people in line of sight of it without needing to bring the households air up to a high temperature.

Passive solar gain is very useful and adds alot of heat for us. Other people use solar heaters that make warm air. So, there are more options than wood hypocaust or forced air natural gas furnace.

I can live without much added energy – we all can

44

The other thing that happens when lives are more integrated is that the same energy used to make food heats the living space. SO, instead of a factory cooking or canning the food, with alot of resultant waste heat, these things are done in the home where the energy and heat also warm the house. So, animal forage from perrenial bushes and coppiced trees, the goats eat the leaves and leave the branches. These waste branches are the only fuel that is needed to process foods and heat a small (insulated) house. No deforestation required. Just one of many examples would be Mulberry, a very, very fast growing, easily pollarded or coppiced, the leaves are super high protein feed for goats or chickens. 
Another very renewable fuel for cooking, and maybe even heating if you live where there is alot of organic waste would be Biogas. (anerobic digestion of organic wastes)

We actually get a ton of heat from passive solar gain, when it isnt pouring down rain. It is significant. 

45
46
47

Some useful reading from Low Tech Magazine:

Restoring the Old Way of Warming: Heating People, Not Places

How to Keep Warm in a Cool House

 
 
48

Some of us can, but the number may fall well short of 7.3 billion.

Can't say I'm looking forward to it.

49

 

 

Well, first off, alot of those 7 million do not currently have central heat and air conditioning.

… Inuit lived without central heat or burning wood in the fozen arctic. People live in Tibet without burning much wood, they dont have much. It is cold there. People live Nomadic in yurts on cold, treeless plains. We are adaptable so far as the various living environmental conditions found around the world without central heat or air conditioning.

It is nice to practice how to stay comfortable now while we can so easily turn on a modern convenience if we were wrong about a particular way to not freeze.

We should all, in our current environment practice things like making shelter. We should all try low to no energy ways to keep our respective body temperature regulated. Experiment with ideas like, can we stay warm if we… are all in one room…have a tent in the room…wear certain clothing items… etc… If nothing else, it is good practice for if there is an emergency and you cannot use your heat. Collapse doesnt come at once anyways, more likely to have intermittancy in service. breakdowns that arent fixed quickly. Inability to pay a much higher than now bill if laid off. Find out how you can stay warm enough in your location if you had to.

50

 

Thanks for this, I had forgotten about this site.

They also have this one, on how  clothing makes so much difference. Insulation: First the Body, Then the Home | LOW←TECH MAGAZINE

And, I have found this is true here. Right now I would be unhappy on this cilly evening if it wasnt for woll socks and wool sweater

51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXPoJAyeF8k

52

I can't help thinking we have heaps of wasted copper in the form of telephone lines etc that could be recycled if we went to fiber for voice and data (which would also improve the viability telecommuting) of , much more efficient that refining ore, there is probably quite a bit of copper in landfill that could be mined. One thing is for sure we are going to have to get very serious about recycling just about everything if we what to have a hope of making a transition to a move viable civilisation. 

53

You can get rid of your gas bill entirely http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/12/9/smart-energy/want-get-rid-gas-bill-heres-how
 

54

The youth in my family are toughened up to handle this kind of thing. Thank heavens. My crazy family member who raised them for this kind of outcome ain't so crazy. 
I am not so tough.  I will not survive in an igloo. The premise  for cannibalism in Soylent Green, the horror futuristic scifi movie from the 70's (probably based on principles from The Population Bomb), was phytoplankton in the oceans dying off. I have been reading about depletiing aquifers since I was a college student in the 70's and it was one of the motivations for my going vegetarian years later.

Good luck Chris and thank you for your work. Those with a seat at (or at least near smiley )  the table can often do most and you are maximizing your opportunity here to help everyone in future generations.  You are taking a smarter approach and it will have a bigger impact. I will continue my little part as I can.

55

Thanks Sand Puppy,
That actually looks quite beautiful, and practical. I was thinking it would need to be built with a new construction anyway as you are quite right - modding an existing home would be very difficult. Especially the hypocaust, can't really retrofit that :slight_smile:

LesPhelps,

We don't get much sunlight in the north of England so I think we'd have to combine wood usage with other forms of energy - I imagine diets and lifestyles will have to adapt to suit. I see forest management as being critical otherwise, as you rightly point out, we'll destroy all of the trees.

mntnhousepermi,

I was only suggesting the methods I'd heard of and did ask for alternatives :slight_smile:

 

 

56

Richcabot,
The grid do not use copper anymore. All distribution cables and transformers use aluminum (because of weight and cost). Copper is mostly used inside buildings and equipment (motors, etc…). Not to use copper is also a way to prevent stealing of grid infrastructure components.  wink

Aluminum is an option with the following inconvenient that are not insurmountable:

  • Larger wire (copper is more conductive than Alu) which implies larger equipment.

  • A bit harder to make junctions using marettes.

Technically, there is a way to use Alu instead of copper. So, I think when copper will become a real issue, the industry will switch to Alu relative.ease.

JM

57

That's some good math right there that we need to examine.  The truth is that there are only so many useful places for wind turbines to go as you point out, and as other people have mentioned it's not like once a wind tower goes up your troubles are over.

The gearboxes wear down, they have a relatively short lifespan and then they need to be recycled and replaced.

So eventually, you have to hit a steady state where the energy from the wind towers is sufficient to maintain the entire fleet of them…and then we get to use whatever is left over.

At least if 'sustainable' is going to mean anything as a word.

58

Weogo, I'm familiar with the SkepticalScience website and I'd guess that you are familiar with http://wattsupwiththat.com/ .  Like the Democrat/Republican illusion of choice, these two sites appear to be polar opposites. What isn't well known is that both sites are "gatekeepers" whose real mission (in addition to keeping the cash flow coming from ads) is to keep the AGW debate going.  As such neither site will allow the falsity of the radiative greenhouse effect to be revealed.  Since the radiative GHE is the foundation of AGW, the climate swindle would immediately come to an abrupt end.  Gary Novak, Mushroom Physiologist and independent scientist does an absolutely masterful job of debunking the climate nonsense.  He is a joy to read.  "Climate Science" is without a doubt an oxymoron.  Happy reading!

59

yep…we're leaving this century. Headed back to the 19th century. I'm taking basic medicine with me but O/W can't see much need for the rest of this.
Kelsey has a foal kicking around in her, it is gonna be fun.

60

And of course the same goes for hydro and solar PV. An interesting question posed to me was why the solar PV manufacturing companies don't run their plants on PV generated electricity? While I have not personally investigated such a plant, I presume it is due to the quantity of energy needed.
I am very familiar with hydropower in that the Hetch Hetchy system owned by the City and County of San Francisco in in my backyard. The amount of fossil fuels needed to maintain the dams, power lines, ditches tunnels and reservoirs not to mention the huge turbines that run 24/7 is no small quantity. If that system had to be maintained with electricity only, I question how that might work out. I doubt anyone has considered it but it would be an interesting discussion!

Coop