No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.You should know that that doesn't work. Our government has been increasing the fuel prices for decades but the number of cars has kept increasing just like the wages. People have to go to their work.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.
A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.
A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.That assumes you have energy storage.
No-one here mentions to slow down on consumption and the economy. While it is the simplest of options but the most impopular.
If we make petrol $25/gallon consumption will slow down and we can longer enjoy the reserves, ofcourse industries and ships and planes have to join as well.You should know that that doesn't work. Our government has been increasing the fuel prices for decades but the number of cars has kept increasing just like the wages. People have to go to their work.
Not to that pricepoint, it worked pretty well with tobacco and that is an extemely addictive substance.
I can bike to work, no excuse not to move or find a job closeby or work from home. If the oil is gone this has to happen anyway.
Very true. But unfortunately our economy is predicated on endless growth. It is only through continual growth and inflation that debt can be paid.
so why keep following this spiral?
A couple of discrepencies are immediately obvious in that graphic compared to Tom Murphy's numbers.
1). That map assumes 20% efficiency which is wildly unrealistic. Just the PV panels alone based on current technology are not that efficient (15-18% in standard test conditions is more realistic and even that is not reflective or real world conditions - heat reduces output significantly). You also have to assume other substantial efficiency losses - wiring, inverter losses, etc.
Tom Murphy assumes 8% efficiency for his map which is much more realistic.
2) That map assumes 1000 W/m² of solar energy which is also overly optimistic. Tom assumes 700 W/m² and he explains in the link I provided how he arrives at that number.
I have not looked at the other assumptions of that graphic but based on the above I'm guessing that they are equally overly optimistic.
It really doesn't matter though. The main point is the same. It would only take PV panels covering a very small fraction of the Earth's land area to provide for all of society's electricity needs.That assumes you have energy storage.An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.
An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.An around the globe grid of solar pannels is silly. Anyone who knows anything about electricty knows this is impractical for reasons of physics.
Very true. But unfortunately our economy is predicated on endless growth. It is only through continual growth and inflation that debt can be paid.I am currently reading the book "Sapiens" kind of interesting statements that only human beings are real, organisations, countries, the concepts of money and debt are all virtual creations that only exist because we believe in them and act to them.
If tomorrow nobody would pay their bills anymore what would happen? Everyones house is sold? To whom?
Your country has such an enormous debt that if the virtual institutions that hold those loans would collect it all tomorrow the usa would be bankrupt or would it?
So no continual growth and profit are mind creations that as is proven over and over can not be sustained for longer periods of time, so why keep following this spiral?
An alternative would be an around-the-globe grid of solar panels. That would require much more solar panels but reduce the amount of storage. Ofcourse this will never be accomplished for political reasons. Nuclear is the only really viable option because it is decentralised.An around the globe grid of solar pannels is silly. Anyone who knows anything about electricty knows this is impractical for reasons of physics.I guess it is time for you to brush-up then. Large electricity grids spanning a significant portion of the globe already exist (the one in Russia for example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe
And there are plans for more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperSmart_Grid
What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?
What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?I don't hope so:
for me personally money equals energy. Having money I can buy things so I don't have to make it my self or let other people do something so I don't have to do it my self.
In return I perform work that cost me little energy since I am good at it, although it does cost me a lot of time.
What you are describing is Bitcoin. What is the value of a Bitcoin or any currency?I don't hope so:
for me personally money equals energy. Having money I can buy things so I don't have to make it my self or let other people do something so I don't have to do it my self.
In return I perform work that cost me little energy since I am good at it, although it does cost me a lot of time.
I agree. Money represents an amount of work. It has evolved from bartering goods. It be interesting to read about the Roman currency and economic system.
Mtdoc, "pile of trash" was in regards to the blog post, not the person. I simply cannot take a guy who has been out of practice for 20 years (and who uses Excel graphs) at face value.
And no, I don't think the planet can support an infinite number of people. But I think the planet's carrying capacity, assuming we can make dense enough cities, is closer to 20 billion.
Mtdoc, "pile of trash" was in regards to the blog post, not the person. I simply cannot take a guy who has been out of practice for 20 years (and who uses Excel graphs) at face value.
And no, I don't think the planet can support an infinite number of people. But I think the planet's carrying capacity, assuming we can make dense enough cities, is closer to 20 billion.
World heath physician Hans Rosling is staying population won’t peak over 11 billion.
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI
World heath physician Hans Rosling is staying population won’t peak over 11 billion.
This is what happens when complex societies begin to collapse. Historically this has always happened eventually - with exhaustion of important resources usually a major causative factor.
A good book on the subject is Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies
But the internet can be easily turned off by the masters of the universe... imagine that!