site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   3485 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 2, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First time poster so i'm not very well versed in the formalities here just to let you guys know.

Will try to be as direct as possible.

Im of the coviction that modern civilization is doomed to collapse. Because of energy constaints, namely the energy return on investment (EROI) of: peak oil and renewable energies. Further more the energy density of oil alternatives is not dense enough to accomodate the modern standard of living.

Here a couple pieces of information that support my viewpoint: Number 1: "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society (2014)" research paper by Charles A.S Hall and others. Number 2: The article "renewables-ko-by-eroi" on the website energytransition.org. Number 3: "Energy, EROI and quality of life (2014)" by Jessica G. Lambert and others.

A couple of assumtions i made are that high EROI is needed for modern living. In case of big EROI losses there will be a massive increase in civil unrest. There is enough coal in the ground to supply our energy needs. However this is not very applicable in cars nor is it good for the envirmoment, which in turn will cause civilisation collape in the longhaul.

If i forgot anything here please let me know.

It would be very nice to hear some counter viewpoints! Because looking at the future and seeking a bleak one is not nice.

All the best,

William

P.S. How do you post links here?

It's interesting that you bring up energy density, but don't mention nuclear, which blows everything else out of the water.

If you're talking about energy density of transportable power (i.e. oil as a fuel for vehicles rather than electricity creation), I'm willing to assume batteries arent an option due to energy density/materials required, but you should probably addresss why hydrogen and ammonia *aren't * valid options as an oil/gasoline replacement (other than the cost of replacing infrastructure, but if that's the argument, it's a separate one).

At least, that's my thought process on the matter.

Thanks for the response.

Nuclear is very good on the small scale. However there is not enough uranium to support longterm global reliance on nuclear energy. If the entire world would switch to nuclear energy today, the known uranium supply will be depleted within 5 years.

See the article: "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy need" on phys.org.

I will give you that there is alot of uranium in the world's oceans, maybe this could be extracted. But this will cut deeply into the net energy gain nuclear gives.

Even then maybe this could feasible. Not so sure, i havent versed myself verywell in this department.

*Edit, ofcourse there could be alot of new uranium discoveries, but since the known supply is 'only 5 global energy years'. I assume the unknown deposits wont supply much more.

**More edits, For hydrogen there are big energy costs for compressing it into a density where it is feasable to use. As for ammonia i havent looked into this one yet, thank you very much!

All the best,

William

How do spent fuel reprocessing and thorium reactors affect the lifespan of nuclear energy reserves?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats