This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.
Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.
RULES
1 - Remember the human
2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source
3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.
4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.
Related lemmys:
I get that this is collapse, but that was a ridiculously unsourced opinion piece.
Claiming renewable energy like solar is a dead end because it's currently manufactured using oil power is as silly as someone from 200 years ago claiming oil powered electric factories are impossible because they need to be built with steam powered factories.
It is an opinionated blog. But the core idea is reasonably easy to check, using a self replicating ISRU photovoltaics factory which uses its energetic output for everything as a model. Running an aluminium electrolysis cell is already difficult without buffering. It will already require mining and also transport, since offsite. Do make a list of raw materials and the entire supply chain for manufacturing. Write down the list of materials for those. At some point you might notice where the problems are.
Notice that green plants have no issues with ISRU self-rep, but we are quite far removed from that capability and we likely won't get there because we're already running out of fossil fuels and hence resource extractability.
Do make a list of raw materials and the entire supply chain for manufacturing. Write down the list of materials for those. At some point you might notice where the problems are.
That's what my proposed researcher from 200 years ago did to prove that oil powered factories are impossible.
This isn't the valid argument you think it is. I don't have any issues with you not understanding the predicament. After all almost nobody but a few weird people do, and we can't do a damn thing about it, since it being, well, a predicament and not just a problem.
You believe there are bootstrap limitations but tell me I need to prove your argument. You claimed aluminum manufacturing requires oil fired generators yet 30% of aluminum production is already with renewables.
It seems this is a matter of faith for you rather than a position you wish to defend.
I did not claim that aluminium electrolysis cell was powered by an oil generator, if you want to single out one random, small part of the supply chain, which completely runs against the idea of looking at the entirety of processes and material sources for renewables, which of them depend on fossil energy, fossil organic and mineral sources, and which of them can be easily substituted, by, say, electrification or using a different material. It was just an algorithm for you to run at your end to produce a dataset to verify the claim, that current renewables are not autopoietic but fossil energy extenders, and subject to extraction limits at scales required. The bootstrap problem exists for hypothetical future renewable technology with ISRU self-rep. A weaker bootstrap issue is if you no longer have enough nonrenewable surplus for the transition, which is a real problem, but not the point I was making.
I don't blame you. You need to have a holistic view of dozens of industrial processes, mineral extraction and enrichment, energy use, reserves, and so on in your head. Or be ready to collect the information, which takes a lot of time and effort.
There are reasons I only mention photovoltaics and wind. I could run through just the aluminium supply chain (without using hydro, because it's saturated and hides the issue of output variability) to make a point, but I really encourage you to do it on your own. So that you can do it for everything else.
but I really encourage you to do it on your own.
If you claim there is a problem where no problem has yet manifested, or in all of history, you need to show your work. If you questioned global warming, I would show you the volumes of work that prove it. I wouldn't say, "Do it on your own."
If necessary we can mine with pick axes just like 500 years ago to get the materials to generate energy to reduce manual labor. Rare earth materials aren't needed. They are used for efficiency gains. Electric cars were made over 100 years ago without rare earth minerals or lithium.
The problem has not yet fully manifested because renewables are a multiplier of fossil energy and fossil energy driven extraction of fossils and mineral resources, fossil driven agriculture and so on while we're yet only slightly past the cusp of net energy per capita production and about the cusp of net energy production. You already see the problems in accounting systems like SEEDS.
If you look at the world primary energy use https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy you see that there has been no energy source transition but addition. Biofuels allow you roughly Edo era Japan https://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-05/japans-sustainable-society-edo-period-1603-1867/ technology and population density and occupation structure, assuming a mostly pristine ecosystem.
Early EVs began in the well developed industry era, which required significant coal use. You don't need rare earth magnets for windmills or water wheels, but it limits us to milling grain, pumping water and running blacksmith forges. Without cheap and abundant natural gas no cheap and abundant nitrate fertilizer. Without diesel and agricultural machines we're back to subsistence farming, but with the handicap of 8+ billions people already around, in a degraded ecosystem. Without bunker fuels no modern supply chains. Without diesel electric hybrid trucks and monster excavators no large scale mineral extraction and processing of progressively poor ores.
Photovoltaics is just great, but it has to power agriculture, mining, industry and everything, besides just itself (do look into why it cannot power even the supply chain of its own production, it is not just about ERoEI). Adding wind, a lesser scalable resource does not change anything. Molecular nanotechnology systems could probably do it, but need sustained high technology regime to be developed. We have basically abandoned tried building them in the time space of the last half century.
multiplier of fossil energy and fossil energy driven extraction of fossils
Yes cheap solar makes oil cheaper because it's not needed. Just like coal made wood cheaper. However Germany is at 59% renewable and increasing.
Biofuels allow you roughly Edo era Japan technology
Given that Edo era Japan did not have biofuels that's a self contradictory statement. Biofuels allow PV panel manufacturing which are a self sustainable energy production. That is the cost to produce a PV panel is less than than the energy it generates over its lifetime.
You don't need rare earth magnets for windmills or water wheels, but it limits us to milling grain, pumping water and running blacksmith forges.
You don't need rare earth magnets at all for generators or motors. They are used today to give efficiency improvements. We had generators and motors over 150 years ago without any rare earth magnets. Rare earth magnets date back to the 1970's. And the minerals needed to make them aren't scarce.
"The term 'rare-earth' is a misnomer because they are not actually scarce, although historically it took a long time to isolate these elements.[4][5]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element
Edit: The Tesla model S doesn't use rare earth magnets for its motors.
given that Edo era Japan did not have biofuels
Wood is biofuel.
to summarize in a different way the arguments of the person you are debating with i would say just look around you, how much have we weaned from fossil fuels.
in 1993 the sum of nuclear and renewables in our global energy mix was 14%, 30 years later in 2023 it is 18.5%. our total energy usage is massively higher and fossil fuel use is massively higher over those 30 years.
Its too little too late scenario. Sure its technically possible we could replace FFs with renewables and nuclear but thats not where we are at yet or in the next 50 years at this pace. Now depending on what you think the depletion curve of FFs looks like will tell you if it will be possible or not. the data doesnt look good for a smooth transition. At best the scenario is a severe bottleneck unless we pull some unprecedented exponential changes in renewable and nuclear deployment.
Sure its technically possible we could replace FFs with renewables
That's the point that I'm arguing with the OP. He has claimed it isn't technically possible but refuses to give proof.
Uh. You're missing way more puzzle pieces than I thought. Little point in continuing this conversation.
I refuted your points. That's what a debate is.
You claimed a lack of rare earth magnets would send technology back to milling grain and pumping water. But they weren't invented until the 1970's. The Tesla model S doesn't even use them.
You claimed PV solar isn't self sustainable but we already know it's cost, which includes profit margins at every stage of manufacturing and transportation, is lower than the energy output over a panels lifetime. That means it is not only self sustainable but makes enough surplus energy for people to live off the jobs of manufacturing the PV panels.
No, you consistently fail to understand the whole mode of the argument. Rare earth magnets is a red herring which you brought up. Cost of PV is another such.
I gave up because what you said towards the conversation tail made me realize you're missing too much on your end to be worth my time and are unwilling to investigate on your own. If you "refuted" something, be my guest. I wish it was that easy with reality.
The cost of PV is not a red herring in that the consumer cost is the culmination of all manufacturing efforts required to make PV including profits for everyone. Because of this you can't claim there are hidden supply chain problems with PV panels without providing any evidence.
I already addressed your, "research it yourself" deflection.
This is faith for you.
Here is an essay https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/solar-panels-another-exercise-in I have come across covering things I thought you could find relatively easily on your own. If you're motivated you can fact-check and use it as a point of departure for further reseach. If you're really motivated I can recommend Tim Murphy's textbook https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m
I could provide proof that your links have mistakes but you should do your own research. I think you can find them relatively easily on your own.
To get you started, compare these numbers which are sourced against your textbook.
This concludes the experiment. I did not expect a different outcome.
You expect others to do research to come to your conclusions but won't do research to come to others conclusions.
I even went out of my way to provide you a link that showed a mistake. What research did you do to prove yourself wrong?
I'm running informal sampling about the effectiveness of third party entry-level educational materials on a difficult topic, on a fringe platform. So far the finge platform is not showing a difference to mainstream ones, as potentially possible from audience self-filtering. While N is low the visible conversion factor so far is zero.
To directly address your comment: I am extremely aware of practice of solar PV in Germany, I live there and installed some 2kWp on my roof by myself. Your link has zero relevance to the argument whether current and near future renewable power is autopoietic and whether it also can also create, maintain and power the current global technological society. You need to look at primary energy consumption globally, because solar power infrastructure is merely installed in Germany, using mostly external resources.
I will not continue this thread further unless you can show me you're worth my time.
I'm running informal sampling about the effectiveness of third party entry-level educational materials
You're not fooling me and I hope for your mental health you aren't fooling yourself.
whether it also can also create, maintain and power the current global technological society
But your links didn't provide any proof of your thesis that renewables are not capable of being autopoietic.
The solar data was 6 years out of date. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that a limit was reached and no progress has been made. But we have real world data showing solar costs have continued to go down dramatically over the past 6 years. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices
The textbook claimed shifting to solar would take 6% of the global gdp over a period of years. But global energy already costs 13% of global gdp. It's not out of reach and that's based on 2018 solar costs.
Do some research.