Hello Tycho, Been awhile since we communicated. You know that air pollution isn't contained in a region like the EU. So banning emissions there from tailpipes, heating, industrial activity, electricity generation, agricultural applications, etc. would simply transfer emission output elsewhere. Mining, transporting ores, smelting, transporting metals, fabricating parts for wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/tidal..., assembly wherever including transport of the infrastructure elements, all have embedded energy at each step.
Do you think that the EU or any developed region will voluntarily go on energy diets? Meanwhile there are billions seeking to increase their throughput by whatever means possible as they are in INvoluntary simplicity currently. Note that I am not questioning the relative emissions from the posted diagrams. It truly doesn't matter how accurate either one is, as you can be sure that all the FFs able to be harvested and used will be used. Humans aren't exempt from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
Steven, after all I feel tempted to add some comments based on you original comment.
You write: "[...] would simply transfer emission output elsewhere" claiming that renewables would cause the same amount of emissions elsewhere. This is simply not true for the lifetime of renewables technologies, even if they were manufactured using fossil resources.
Another point you raise is that voluntary "energy diets" are not realistic. Whether you are right or not seems rather irrelevant to me as this is not a topic of my post.
Without getting into this discussion again I will just restate my position that I do not consider MPP a law of nature and that I consider its general applicability questionable.
'You write: "[...] would simply transfer emission output elsewhere" claiming that renewables would cause the same amount of emissions elsewhere. This is simply not true for the lifetime of renewables technologies, even if they were manufactured using fossil resources.'
Comparing burning FFs to alt energy requires farmer than smokestack measurements vs one time manufacture of solar or wind. Are you considering the transport at each step from mining through assembly (see below for recycling steps which apply only to some material)? What about lubrication and maintenance?
The lifetime is 20-25 years, with any recycling taking new energy inputs from dismantling, sorting, transporting, processing into usable material, re-fabrication of new parts, transport at each step, assembly at a new site, and maintenance for the next generation. Repeat each generation!
I just noticed this reply. The study is over a decade old. And the abstract doesn’t give quantitative details. “comparatively lower except for nuclear” doesn’t cut it. Nuclear is coming back strongly including in next generation forms. Meanwhile, the minerals mined for massive infrastructure build-outs for alt electricity and heat are continually more difficult to access. Deeper and harder means more energy inputs per output. I’m not against alt energy, but my claim is that every bit of FF that can be obtained will e used in one way or another. As Bill Rees, Art Berman, Charlie Hall, and dozens other experts say, to date all alt energy has been additive. FFs have increased except for the brief Covid slowdown period. Modern Techno-Industrial civilizations are addicted to growth and exosomatic energy. Any slowdown will be involuntary, and I’ll wager for charity on that at longbets.org
Your audience might have missed it. Your position looks to me like hopium. You’ve never substantiated the human exceptionalism required for voluntary shrinkage of throughput
I am not claiming that masses will voluntarily choose to reduce energy throughput but know for a fact that some already do. Hopium or not, fatalism just does not excite me.
Hello Tycho, Been awhile since we communicated. You know that air pollution isn't contained in a region like the EU. So banning emissions there from tailpipes, heating, industrial activity, electricity generation, agricultural applications, etc. would simply transfer emission output elsewhere. Mining, transporting ores, smelting, transporting metals, fabricating parts for wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/tidal..., assembly wherever including transport of the infrastructure elements, all have embedded energy at each step.
Do you think that the EU or any developed region will voluntarily go on energy diets? Meanwhile there are billions seeking to increase their throughput by whatever means possible as they are in INvoluntary simplicity currently. Note that I am not questioning the relative emissions from the posted diagrams. It truly doesn't matter how accurate either one is, as you can be sure that all the FFs able to be harvested and used will be used. Humans aren't exempt from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
Steven, after all I feel tempted to add some comments based on you original comment.
You write: "[...] would simply transfer emission output elsewhere" claiming that renewables would cause the same amount of emissions elsewhere. This is simply not true for the lifetime of renewables technologies, even if they were manufactured using fossil resources.
Another point you raise is that voluntary "energy diets" are not realistic. Whether you are right or not seems rather irrelevant to me as this is not a topic of my post.
Without getting into this discussion again I will just restate my position that I do not consider MPP a law of nature and that I consider its general applicability questionable.
Re:
'You write: "[...] would simply transfer emission output elsewhere" claiming that renewables would cause the same amount of emissions elsewhere. This is simply not true for the lifetime of renewables technologies, even if they were manufactured using fossil resources.'
Comparing burning FFs to alt energy requires farmer than smokestack measurements vs one time manufacture of solar or wind. Are you considering the transport at each step from mining through assembly (see below for recycling steps which apply only to some material)? What about lubrication and maintenance?
The lifetime is 20-25 years, with any recycling taking new energy inputs from dismantling, sorting, transporting, processing into usable material, re-fabrication of new parts, transport at each step, assembly at a new site, and maintenance for the next generation. Repeat each generation!
I know. And these calculations have been made and turn out favorably for renewables (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032114005395).
Also, hopefully, the production process will become increasingly emission-free.
I just noticed this reply. The study is over a decade old. And the abstract doesn’t give quantitative details. “comparatively lower except for nuclear” doesn’t cut it. Nuclear is coming back strongly including in next generation forms. Meanwhile, the minerals mined for massive infrastructure build-outs for alt electricity and heat are continually more difficult to access. Deeper and harder means more energy inputs per output. I’m not against alt energy, but my claim is that every bit of FF that can be obtained will e used in one way or another. As Bill Rees, Art Berman, Charlie Hall, and dozens other experts say, to date all alt energy has been additive. FFs have increased except for the brief Covid slowdown period. Modern Techno-Industrial civilizations are addicted to growth and exosomatic energy. Any slowdown will be involuntary, and I’ll wager for charity on that at longbets.org
Hi Steven, thanks for reading my post and your comment. We’ve already had this discussion several times so I’m going to let it rest this time.
Your audience might have missed it. Your position looks to me like hopium. You’ve never substantiated the human exceptionalism required for voluntary shrinkage of throughput
I am not claiming that masses will voluntarily choose to reduce energy throughput but know for a fact that some already do. Hopium or not, fatalism just does not excite me.