 |
True, however, as countries grow in wealth, they tend towards environmentalism. They use less energy per capita. They have a better handle on production and distribution, reducing waste.
Not saying there won't be hurdles along the way, but don't abandon what works. More people also means more heads focused on every problem.
If the 11 billion is within the next hundred years, it's questionable whether the planet can sustain that number comfortably.
History says no.
Where in history have we reached a global maximum?
"Scientists" have been predicting that event every generation or so, sure, but we've never reached that point as far as I'm aware.
The same can be said about the oil scares going back to 1919 on the very cusp of the petrol age.
Overpopulation scares go back as far as 1798 with Thomas Malthus, he encourages promoting disease and bad hygiene amongst the poor. It's always the poor, they are the highest producer of children, and they're relatively dumb and powerless...
The trick is to grow wealth everywhere, then people can practice good environmental policy. Wealth in the world has been growing rapidly, developing nation's soon won't be too far behind us in green affairs, given a bit of freedom and capitalism.
If China and India, political opposites basically are any indication, we are in trouble and the planet will get over run by humans. Better get those rockets ready and start looking for another planet to screw up. Unfortunately nobody really is clamoring for a nuclear bomb in here back yards as enough disasters have scared countries to explore safer ways to keep the lights on. Nuclear technology is expensive and time consuming and produces waste which we haven't yet figured out what to do with. Heck we haven't figured out what to do with any of our waste yet for that matter, and until we do, we pay the costs of keeping those lights on.
Still waiting for Clete to figure out population control besides nuking everybody but the white people. Or the suggestion that rich folks will share the wealth with the workers. Voluntarily.
I don't think that's true. The general trend is that expanding economic growth increases energy use per capita.Quote:
True, however, as countries grow in wealth, they tend towards environmentalism. They use less energy per capita.
I'm not following you on that one. Landfills are entirely acceptable and are projected to be available for decades to come, so I'm not sure I get your point. Nuke waste is a problem only because Obama shut down the Nevada waste site after ten bil had been spent on it.Quote:
Heck we haven't figured out what to do with any of our waste yet for that matter, and until we do, we pay the costs of keeping those lights on.
Population control is WELL BEYOND MORTAL CONTROL......We cannot work this out, or we won't be willing to do what it takes to work it out....only God can and will take care of this....and, when God steps in, its death and destruction cometh, in spades. Rest easy, someone a lot bigger than us will take control of the steering mechanisms before too long.
Big difference in economic growth, and population growth, but you are correct as both put greater demand on energy consumption. The big elephant in the room is both efficiency, and abundance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I remember it rather well and despite the money spent not one ounce of waste was stored mostly because a majority of Nevadans didn't want it as was the case of the other sights proposed. They didn't want it either, so the Yucca Mtn were chosen simply because they were the only ones on the list without a powerful senator to fight against it (Until Harry Reid vowed to fight it, I guess they had enough of the Nuclear stuff since the bomb testing days). Power companies don't want the responsibility either, and indeed the congress did make government responsible for safe disposal so we sit in limbo. I don't suppose Mississippi wants to store spent nuclear waste does it? Why not?Quote:
I'm not following you on that one. Landfills are entirely acceptable and are projected to be available for decades to come, so I'm not sure I get your point. Nuke waste is a problem only because Obama shut down the Nevada waste site after ten bil had been spent on it.
Always sounds better to put stuff in somebody else's back yard doesn't it.
Below is a graph from the same source, depicting energy consumption per dollar gdp, a measure of actual energy efficiency over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/e...v3_850x600.svg
Talaniman: Did you ever get over to Aiken, S.C.? How about Hanford in Washington State or Crystal River in Florida? Got kin who work in Baton Rouge site and in Surry, Va. (VEPCO).
Looks like gap between rich and poor is shrinking over time in terms of energy costs....this indicates Efficiency gains for all.
You like your small towns don't you? Me too! Not sure what your point is or reading that rather extensive link by InfoJunkie has me distracted for the time being. Great link!
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...energy-sources
https://www.atg.wa.gov/hanford
Good data!Quote:
Whilst global energy growth is growing from developing economies, the trend for many high-income nations is a notable decline. As we see in exemplar trends from the UK and US, the growth we are currently seeing in transitioning economies ended for many high-income nations by over the 1970-80s period. Both the US and UK peaked in terms of per capita energy consumption in the 1970s, plateauing for several decades until the early 2000s. Since then, we see a reduction in consumption; since 2000, UK usage has decreased by 20-25 percent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
My point was not that, historically, we have in the past reached a population maximum. It was that your contention that due to growth and technological breakthroughs the people will all be comfortable and wealthy therefore leading to better management of resources. That has never occurred on a basis that is equal for all. I think it is a naive view.
I'm only halfway through this link InfoJ, but it appears the nations with the years of evolving the grids and network upgrades and have the policies and processes in place are the ones not only with better efficiencies but spend less to maintain and easier to make improvements. Like most human endeavors though the initial startup costs are through the roof and often the management of waste is the long term stickler even by todays standard and that takes into accounting the local politics and willingness to bear the costs. Government subsidies and regulations notwithstanding.
I'm not a believer in the trickle down good will for all theory though, as evidenced by past experience, as rich guys and corporations are more likely to pass costs on and that goes for fines for slow or non compliance and disasters they cause. I mean refusing to raise taxes on the rich by less than a percent to fund an infrastructure bank didn't exactly fill me with confidence. Nor does rolling back Obama era regulations and getting out of the climate change agreement give much hope of the motivation to meet environmental targets.
Seems like the real goal is drill, frack, baby drill and frack some more. That can't be good unless you like MO'MONEY for the rich dudes.
InfoJunkie4Life: I hope it works out the way you envision it.....its obvious you have thought a lot about this and think that it is possible....We need NUCLEAR in the U.S.: We've gone too long allowing a Hollywood movie to dictate our Energy Department policies on Nuclear Power growth....that's just dumb.
The caveat in all of this is the growth and WHO gets cut while others grow: When little guys grow, its not at the expense of other little guys, its at the expense of the BIG GUY and the BIG GUY IN ALL THIS IS THE U.S.....I am not FOR ADVANCING ANY OTHER NATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE U.S.'S POSITION IN THE WORLD, AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ECONOMY. OR AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.....If all this can be done WITHOUT COSTING OR HURTING THE U.S. IN ANY WAY, ITS GREAT!
The link I provided about Hanson, Wa. clearly shows that they moved the residence out to build this nuclear wastestorage facility for Nuclear waste and are now cleaning it up as it has neared capacity, and the SST's are beyond there reliable age for safety. I believe we have real life examples of nuclear disasters from 3 Mile Island to Chernobyl, to Fukushima to be very wary of the hazards of nuclear plants despite all the safety protocols we put in place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucl..._and_incidents
Quote:
As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA[10] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include theFukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster(1986), the Three Mile Island accident(1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[11] Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[12]
After all this time nuclear powered plants still have a few kinks to be worked out. You know us humans are far from perfect.
So what is your solution?Quote:
The link I provided about Hanson, Wa. clearly shows that they moved the residence out to build this nuclear wastestorage facility for Nuclear waste and are now cleaning it up as it has neared capacity, and the SST's are beyond there reliable age for safety. I believe we have real life examples of nuclear disasters from 3 Mile Island to Chernobyl, to Fukushima to be very wary of the hazards of nuclear plants despite all the safety protocols we put in place.
A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.
The key word is incremental as opposed to all out push for profit with no regard for consequences to life on Earth as we know it.
Talaniman: I am all for what you propose AS LONG AS certain conditions are met: 1) It is universally applied to all countries, equally, in such demands; 2) It doesn't put the U.S. at a disadvantage insofar as our manufacturing capacity; and 3) The U.S. doesn't pay for anyone else's participation, we pay only for our own.
Many words but no solution. To stop using carbon based fuels, you must come up with a different source of energy. You seem to reject nuclear. I understand that, but after that there are very few alternatives. Platitudes about non-profits mean very little. Name a non-profit that is currently successfully managing a large sector of the economy and we can discuss it. The Soviet Union was basically non profit. How far did that get them?Quote:
A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.
I don't see a solution. If indeed man's activities are promoting global warming, then the only solution might be to learn how to ameliorate its negative effects.
Obviously your UNDERSTANDING of my words is as insufficient as your technical knowledge despite the big word you found to hide the fact. That's okay with me since it's a VERY complex subject.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 AM. |