http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2013/01/daily-bugle-robot-will-do-work-of.html
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Nah. What that would be is the common Veblenian influence on > Technocracy/Hubbert and on Kenneth Burke's 1930 satire, "Waste, the future > of prosperity". Speaking of Technocracy, I can't resist mentioning the 1933 > Loony Tunes cartoon, "Bosko and the Mechanical Man" in which Bosko is > inspired to build a robot when he sees the headline in the Daily Bugle: > "ROBOT WILL DO WORK OF HUNDRED MEN SAY TECHNOCRATS." > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> I see hints of a belief in Peak Oil in your post. I like Gar's >> reply but would add this: >> >> The singular focus on SUPPLY of energy is what leads to Business As Usual >> (BAU) with clean energy, a frightening prospect. >> >> It is the DEMAND for energy that the left should be discussing, >> addressing, and reducing, specifically demand by the affluent, North and >> South. >> >> Gene >> >> >> On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Gar Lipow wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Although I can't eliminate uncertainty and won't try, I suspect there >> is >> >> indeed a "fundamental and unsolvable" problem with so-called renewable >> >> energy sources that arises from the nature of "embodied energy." >> >> >> >> Currently, the cost of wind and solar infrastructure depends on cheap >> inputs >> >> of fossil fuels in their manufacture and construction. Wind and solar >> built >> >> by wind and solar would be much more expensive than wind and solar >> built by >> >> coal and petroleum. However, if that problem was solved it would give >> rise >> >> to yet another problem: the low cost of renewable energy inputs would >> then >> >> be available to subsidize unconventional fossil fuel extraction just as >> >> today the availability of cheap natural gas makes tar sands oil >> economically >> >> feasible. >> > >> > >> > Wind and Concentrating solar replace the fossil fuels embodied in >> > their manufacture and transportation about twelve to eighteen times >> > over. Wind, though higher in cost than coal, is not that much higher >> > in cost than coal, so if input for renewables was largely wind energy >> > the cost of renewables would not be all that much higher. Even if a >> > balanced approach with lots of wind and solar, long distance >> > transmission, storage, some geothermal some hydro and what have you >> > could replace almost all fossil fuels for a cost difference of around >> > what the world spends on wars. As to using renewables to subsidize >> > fossil fuels - a sane society would choose not to. >> > >> > That last hints at the real problem. There are close zero technical >> > obstacles to phasing out almost all fossil fuels (a few industrial and >> > transport processes where they are not currently replacable, though >> > the quantity is small enough that biofuel, maybe as a net energy loser >> > subsidized by wind electricity, could replace fossil sources and >> > possibly be sustainable). But the political and social obstacles are >> > overwhelming. It is easy enough to build mental models of a "green" >> > social democracy that could create a temporarily sustainable >> > capitalism, but really it is hard to picture the changes we need >> > happening except as the result of an ecologically aware socialist >> > revolution. A revolution that is both red and green. A strawberry >> > revolution, >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> The substitution of fuel for labor is cost effective only to the >> extent >> >>>> that fuel is cheaper than labor. Currently, the relative cheapness >> of fuel >> >>>> results from the shifting of the social and environmental costs of >> >>>> extracting and burning the shit. Sachs and Kotilikoff discuss the >> machines >> >>>> as if they run on some mysterious unknown substance. Clue: 85% >> fossil fuels >> >>>> at present. Among the words that do not appear in their paper: >> energy, >> >>>> climate, emissions. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> What about the theoretical possibility that fossil fuels are replaced >> by >> >>> wind and/or solar power? >> >>> >> >>> I am well aware of the many technical difficulties with alternative >> energy >> >>> sources, but is there any reason to think that these difficulties are >> >>> somehow fundamental and unsolvable, rather than merely being a >> limitation of >> >>> our current state of knowledge? >> >>> >> >>> -raghu. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> pen-l mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Tom Walker (Sandwichman) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> pen-l mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow >> > Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com >> > Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ >> > Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pen-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
