I wish you were correct. Now how long were they able to sustain that fusion reaction in the lab for? What was the EROEI of that reaction? How long until the ITER demo reactor in France is complete? How will this prevent the US economy from collapsing? How do we make fertilizer now? What happened to the bees? How do we get the 1 million gallons of high level nuclear waste back out of the drinking water?

How is it that reactors are constructed and where do the materials come from? The energy needed to obtain 1 TON of any material from the Earth increases as the depth of mining increases. Again we are cresting into the EROIE that anything has. If you didn’t realize it we at present we are in a global COPPER SHORTAGE.

The result is that construction moves to PVC and that requires plenty of fossil fuel to make. Windings found in generators are made of copper and so are the power lines all around the world. Copper by weight is costly and it is now one of the most stolen metals. Now this is only one in many raw materials needed to construct power generation.

So you want to move to a HYDROGEN based industrial world? How shall we do that Mr. Solve The Energy Crisis Man? Let us start with a FUEL CELL. These are not ENERGY SOURCES but are merely batteries. If you bothered to investigate how they are made you would find that some of the materials are RARE and EXPENSIVE and must be MINED (deep mined).

There is HYDROGEN all around us and even in us but the issue is that it is found bound to OXYGEN in the form of WATER. There are a few ways to break that bond but the sad truth is that doing so requires more energy than you get. This is called a NEGATIVE EROIE.

So you care to expand our FISSION reactors and switch to an ELETCRIC world. Here again the EROEI applies. Uranium is problematic on many levels. First it must be mined and this is costly in terms of resources, life and time. Uranium is mined and not concentrated so literal mountains must be moved to fetch a few kilos of ore. The mining process alone requires the magic ingredient of

OIL to power the equipment in the mine and above. Processing also requires large amounts of energy and when transportation, operation and waste storage are factored in the EROIE becomes a NEGATIVE that means we would have been better off burning the oil to make the electricity to begin with.

Power from FUSION has been a scientific plaything since the end of WW2. If you want to see fusion in action just look at any star including the SUN. At the moment everything on Earth depends on FUSION. Ultimately the SUN has driven the processes that creates OIL. The oil we use is a liquid battery, nothing more or less.

Fusion by man has mammoth issues that must be overcome to be possible. ITER is the only true fusion reactor being built and is some 15 to 20 years off. This is a joint effort that includes the USA. The main problem is that the reaction cannot touch any of the materials of the reactor since it would be almost as hot as the SUN. The plasma must be confined to a magnetic field. The power of a FISSION reactor is needed to jump-start the FUSION reaction.

I will agree that we have moved in magnitudes of EROEI during our history. The issue is not about our abilities to adapt but instead that alternatives are all at LOW or of a NEGATIVE EROEI. It is that higher EROEI that has allowed our populations to boom. To step down any amount of EROEI will be a disaster since 6.5 BILLION HUMANS rose to being from the higher EROEI found in fossil fuels.

Money at one time allowed goods and services to be exchanged and that money was backed up by GOLD. Since the first US GAS CRUNCH the GOLD STANDARD has been dropped. The US has been exchanging our topsoil for OPEC OIL in the form of food since then. We then apply a portion of the imported OIL to make fertilizer…

My position here is that of diametrical opposition to any position that would contend that our chances of a MASS SURVIVAL given the current conditions is remotely possible. Folks the USA invaded IRAQ and intends to invade IRAN in order to plunder resources and to prevent the OPEC nations from switching to the EURO DOLLAR. Attempt to grasp the economic truth that should OPEC move to the EURO (3:1 in value) the 64% imports from OPEC nations will triple in cost. $62 oil will soar over $100 per barrel.

Here I’m suggesting that your plan (you don’t have one by the way) lacks any solution that grows the economy and at the same time eliminates the oil imports. The Bush solution is to take and hold resources by force and target a group (Muslims) in order to CULL the global population. I love it when people like you post about how WE (who have messed things up so much) are going to FIX EVERYTHING.

Grow up!

You are living inside the closed mental space of a person who does not understand economic and scientific history.

Every known case of economic transformation from successive states of energy flux density has involved a revolution in technology and the family of resources required to generate power.

i.e. Wood->Coal->Oil->Nuclear Fission->Nuclear Fusion

The act of moving forward to higher states of power production in energy flux density terms creates new resources that were not previously considered to be useful, i.e. Thorium. In an isotope driven economy, in Fusion power, there is the potential for mankind to wilfully synthesize entirely new categories of resources, if the political will can be marshalled to adopt the miraculous new forms of technology that are already available to mankind in theory.

In general terms, Mankind is capable of solving limitations in the current political-economy by means of revolutions in scientific and the related technological modes of production.

Here the competent scientists (not the mechanistic-statistical computer modellers and data fakers) speak:

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/freestuff/cd_info.html#getcopies

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/28/vatican_conference.shtml

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/youth_movement_files/articles_lym/2007/04/25_akasofu.shtml

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0412_aussie.shtml

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/0410_ipcc.shtml

Thank you, sincerely, Saywho, for your efforts, knowledge and the broader worldview you share here.
Comment by Raven — May 8, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

Was there a 2nd “saywho” or are you referring to the broarder worldview of the guy talking pointing to overpopulation as an indication of extinction ?

Easily impressed.

Populations of what ? Panda bears ?
I don’t know whether you get out much but humans are somewhat more comfortable terms of fking and eating.

” In the days of the Kaliyuga (sp?)
the truth will be heard from children, and ‘madmen’.”

Comment by david — May 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am

What is your point David? Do you believe that you are better than me or smarter than me? Do you believe that your sarcastic posts can change the facts? What is your lasting solution to the actual true issue at the center of all of the others? You believe that humans are the cause of global warming so then you must believe that humans are the cause of war and you believe that humans are starting to fall short on available energy… So it is possible that HUMANS are the central issue here.

The question is will nature end our dominant rein or will we destroy ourselves? Realistic views are needed here since we must first realize what is at stake if we want to accomplish anything at all. Eternal optimism does not put the 1,000,000 gallons of high level nuclear waste back in the tank. The desire to create even more nuclear waste in the face of the disaster that is nuclear power proves that your optimism is now source of propaganda.

The truth is that we are in a bad way regarding resources and pollution. The wars developing now over race, religion, revenge and social class are nothing more than masks to conceal the truth of resource depletion. The law of diminishing returns applies to economics, energy and crops. There is a limit that humans have exceeded that like it or not has consequences for crossing! Our crossing it was inevitable however cheap energy allowed our numbers and time to be extended.

One of the most notable depletion stories was from England. As there population grew so did the demand for firewood. In order to survive winters and cook food wood was burned. There forests were nearly gone and then in the 1700’s came COAL. I mentioned this since if they did not find coal a die-off was probable for them. They also incorporated wale oil for lamps. Eventually they moved to oil and then added nuclear. Many of their nuclear plants are past due for decommissioning.

So, David what is your point? Do you believe that solar and wind will help? I happen to realize that devices like windmills require oil and mining to produce. This is the point of all points regarding resources. At the moment the world consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day. Short that amount and see what happens. Solar and wind can help but we will not be able to replace even a fraction of the 85 million barrels needed per day.

Think of things like making steel or plastic or machines or roads or desalinization or clothing. Consider that it is fossil fuel that allows you to build a home today and warm it. How would Dow Corning make fiberglass for insulation without relics from prehistoric times? How does all of that stuff work David since you’re the man with the plan? Tell us the mathematical voodoo that you do to prove that we are not limited by the available resources! How many calories of energy does it take before you realize that we are using resources as fast as we can get them and if necessary we will kill for them?

PAX

There is hardly a newspaper article and hardly a TV or radio program that doesn’t conjure up images of “climate catastrophe,” prophesy floods of gigantic proportions, droughts and hunger. Indeed, the media have developed something akin to a complete apocalyptic program.

It’s the fault of the media, of course, but not exclusively. It’s also the fault of a new hero, an environmental activist who likes to introduce himself by saying: “Hello, I was once the next President of the United States of America.” . . .

This doesn’t mean that Gore should necessarily be taken to task for his statements. He is a politician. But it is odd to hear IPCC Chairman Pachauri, when asked what he thinks about Gore’s film, responding: “I liked it. It does emotionalize the debate, but it seems that it has to do that.” And when Pachauri comments on the publication of the first SPM by saying, “I hope that this will shock the governments so much that they take action,” this doesn’t exactly allay doubts as to his objectivity. When Renate Christ, the secretary of the IPCC, is asked about her opinion of reporting on climate change, she refers to articles that mention “climate catastrophe” and calls them “rather refreshing.” . . .

The problem is that the IPCC is not a political group whose goal is to exert pressure, but a scientific institution and panel of experts. Its members ought to present their results and analyses dispassionately, the way pathologists or psychiatrists do when serving as expert witnesses in court, no matter how horrible the victim’s injuries and how deviant the perpetrator’s psyche are.

Peter Weingart, a sociologist of science from Bielefeld, a city in northwest Germany, believes that the climate experts’ lack of distance has something to do with their training. Scientists usually learn only to reflect on the results of their work, not on their role within the social decision-making process. As a result, they join forces with politicians who share their views. And in this way they do harm to science.

Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:32 am

Whu? Please explain?

michael, dearest michael, please come back to bed, and leave that poor Zooey alone (I’ll do that thing with a falafel that you so crave)

Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:30 am

Really? When? Why?

Comment by michael — May 8, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Really? How So?

Comment by JPark — May 8, 2007 @ 2:11 am

Cows compete for resources and each day one cow holds 800 gallons of potable water out of the system. Cows eat crops, drink water, and take space…

They already have plans to move the globe to vegetarianism…

It is a resource SQUEEZE