site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35993 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

12
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.

Main statement, 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.

Some previous discussion points:

Nuclear, 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.

New Oil, while we are still finding new oil deposits, the discovery rate of the new oil depositst follows a downward trend. (the line has the same figure like a normal-distribution) Some pieces that support this statement, See 1: The USGS forecast. See 2: "Ecology in Times of Scarcity" by John W Day and others. See 3: the article "The Growing gap" on planetforlive.com. Also the new discoveries are very often in locations that are diffuclt to access. Think of very deep sea or antartica, et cetera. This ensures the Energy cost getting this oil will be high, so it is coupled with a high EROI.

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

If i forgot anything please let me know!

All the best,

William

Has peak oil come about yet? Its like 20 years overdue at this point. There is only so many times you can claim a doomsday scenario is approaching before people start to doubt it.

I have a very loose loose understanding of all this stuff, because experts on "peak oil" have consistently been able to talk circles around me for two decades, and yet have also been consistently wrong. This makes me unwilling to wade into their scientific papers.

These are my loose understandings:

  1. We don't really need to discover new oil fields. There are large known reserves of marginal and harder to harvest fields of oil. Same situation as fracking two decades ago. Until the price of oil goes up enough, no technology will be developed to harvest these fields. As long as no technology is developed to harvest these fields they will appear to have a negative EROI.

  2. Solar, Tidal, and Hydro could cover a huge chunk of energy needs. But they are expensive relative to oil, so why bother? Especially if the price will get undercut as soon as new oil extraction tech comes along. Governments and massive corporations can afford to invest in these energy options as a hedge against the price of oil.

  3. We have a moonshot option in the form of fusion energy. Its moving along at a snails pace, but decent chance of getting it before 2050.

  4. Thorium reactors are also a mostly underutilized form of nuclear energy. Also doesn't really have the same fuel limitations as other nuclear options. Same problem as everything else though, why bother when oil is so cheap?

  5. Most of the hate directed towards oil is due to climate concerns. Scientists that work in this field either don't care about these concerns and go make bank in the private oil sector, and never write many papers or communicate with the public. The scientists that do care about climate a bunch stay in academia and think tanks and write all the papers. Fundamental imbalance in the field. Same thing happens in other academic fields, Economics is littered with unemployable Marxist cranks, while the pro-free-market types can go make bank on wall street.

  6. Energy density of hydrocarbons means they will still be used for a long time. Especially in things like jet fuel. But hydrocarbons can be synthesized. It is expensive to synthesize at current energy prices. If price of oil goes up that changes.

  7. Prices have adjusted in the past, new technologies have come about as oil prices increased. The shift will be gradual if it ever needs to actually happen. There will be no collapse of civilization from a lack of oil.

  8. The scientists/activists that hate oil for climate change reasons would LOVE for the economy to collapse from oil related problems. And they strive to make it happen by making oil as expensive as possible to extract, and trying to tax and regulate us back into the stone age.

TL;DR: Oil is still too cheap for any meaningful change to happen in the energy sector. Certainly not change on the level of 'civilization collapse'.

Has peak oil come about yet?

Yes, in 2019.

This is only a half tongue-in-cheek response. I haven't been able to find exact numbers for 2022. Though I did find this, suggesting the 2019 peak is still unsurpassed.

Thats peak demand not peak (potential) extraction. 2019 was pre covid. In fact we might well have hit peak oil demand - with renewables taking over more and more.

Edit: the IEA says we hit peak gasoline demand in 2019, not all oil.

I'm having trouble finding a good chart with recent data, this one ending 2000 shows the pattern I want to discuss: oil usage per capita was on an exponential increase until 1970 and then flattened out (with a downstep in the late 1970s). As this chart is per-capita, it does not mean oil usage has flattened out, only that it's rising no faster than the population. Either 4.5 barrels per year is the optimal amount of oil per person to be using and there just isn't much to be gained by using more. Or, more likely, the availability of oil/energy is limiting our economy/wealth as a society.

This is definitely weaker than the peak oil claim. And, optimistically, the fact that we are ramping up renewables may be taken as evidence that the economy is able to adjust to oil slowly running out, and that oil is running out slower than the pessimists predicted.

ISTR that hydro is pretty tapped out, in the First World. It's such a great energy source in so many ways that we quickly put up dams everywhere that made sense, and so least in North America and Europe we started running out of places that made sense 50 years ago. It's still growing strong in the developing world, though, which takes a little pressure off the growing demand for power there.

Tidal isn't tapped out, but it has a relatively low cap.

Solar could cover a huge chunk of energy needs if only it could be paired with cheap energy storage and transmission. Fission and coal are practically meant for base load, but solar gets at least twice as expensive if you have to rely on it in less sunny places and less sunny times. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of battery chemistry breakthrough handle the "less sunny times" part of that, though. We've been optimizing high power and low density for years, but "big heavy cheap batteries" are now becoming a design target for just this reason.

Boring old uranium nuclear won't be hitting fuel limitations for centuries. Thorium might have other advantages, but the big disadvantages of nuclear right now are "would-be plant operators don't trust the government and public to not quintuple the price with regulatory costs" and "the government and public don't trust would-be plant operators to maintain safety and handle waste with any lower regulatory costs". Thorium doesn't really help there, and fusion will only be a little help.

Boring old uranium nuclear won't be hitting fuel limitations for centuries.

Yes, nuclear power really is the silver bullet solution to energy insufficiency. So far we're largely keeping that bullet chambered, but start enormous electricity price increases or widespread shortages, and you'll see how quickly opinion turns.

Right now new nuclear plants take several years to complete. Opinion might turn quickly but that doesn't turn the lights back on quickly.

Hopefully mass production of microreactors will change this situation before the change becomes necessary.

There are also the issues with inertial response that might mean that we want to keep some traditional non-neglible baseload around even if batteries got cheap and possible to scale.

There’s wrong and then there’s wrong. The strong form of Peak Oil, where we wake up one day and can’t get anything out of the ground, has failed to materialize. The weak form is more a claim that we are on the cusp of a downward trend, which I think is much more defensible.

Tech advancements like fracking complicate the issue. Half of US oil is fracked. In the counterfactual where fracking isn’t possible, how much of that supply is developed? How much higher are prices?

I expect future tech to be harder than fracking. I don’t expect demand to decrease. Therefore, supply won’t keep up with demand. The weak theory is still on the table.

You are wrong on demand. It’s probably peaked or close to it.

Wait, why?

I see @cjet79's comment that it did, in fact drop during COVID. But all the growth factors are still present: increasing population, industrialization and electrification of developing countries, macro-scale shipping. How many countries haven't reached China's level of industry?

Yes.I misread something in the IEA report - gasoline demand has peaked not oil, although the rate of increased demand is slowing there.

Well there are also two reasons why peak oil might happen. One is a demand side drop the other is a supply side drop. 2020 saw the first decline in oil production, but it was obviously a demand side drop.

And eventually oil production will drop off if some better energy technology replaces it.

So the weak version of peak oil is guaranteed to happen. But the reason why it happens matters a lot. And I think an eventual supply side drop is far less likely than an eventual demand side drop.

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