[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: there is no energy crisis

[marc fawzi]

<<
>> The counter argument is that... It is funny to suggest that hundreds
>> of billions of dollars in annual trade that is based on Gallium,
>> Indium or any substance is going to go away just because that
>> substance may be hard to extract or less common.
>> The amount of money involved means that there is large funds
>> available... to pursue more efficient production of Gallium and
>> Indium as well as to find replacement.
>
> OK. Written this way it makes much easier to see what your point is,
> thanks. Given the current economy, the "large funds available" part
> does smell a bit funny though...
>
>>

If consumption is lowered due to a bad economy then there is more
gallium and indium left untapped, so more time to find an alternative.

When you don't do the math as part of the thought process, then you
end up getting frustrated, so I suggest you do the math before
presenting an argument so you cut down on bandwidth usage, as you have
suggested.

<<
> - eventually, the sky won't fall down, of course, but the real problem
>  is scale and *time* to find and deploy a real alternative to Indium
>  and Gallium worldwide. This is the "scale and time" problem
>  explained by K. Cobb, which doesn't change a bit even if you're
>  right, does it?
>>

So what is the time and scale problem? Do you care to explain it in
your own words so I can understand your reasoning?  I find it
disempowering to you to present no original argument in the stream of
the debate.  I encourage you to formulate your own well reasoned
arguments rather than quoting others' work, or if you do quote then at
least add some value by questioning them, not taking their word for
granted, and not waiting until someone else adds value to their
argument. You're not a cog in a wheel only given the freedom to quote
others. You can think, too.

So I'll be waiting for your own original argument or for an expanded
view of the 'scale and time' argument. I want to see you add value
somewhere with original thought before I'd engage in further debate.

Marc


>  almost two years old. Have there been any newer papers claiming
>  they're wrong, or giving concrete evidence that transition to new
>  materials is already feasible and can happen without major pain?
>
> - on a related note, but directly linked to the original topic, that
>  is "there's no energy crisis because nanosolar is already here",
>  we've still got nothing to counter another objection by Cobb, have
>  we? From
>  http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-February/001415.html
>
>> Nanosolar will just come up with a substitute, you may say.  Yes, perhaps,
>> but when? Keep in mind that the claims they are making are based on their
>> current technology which uses these inputs and they are not anticipating
>> that they will have to find substitutes for these.
>
> Marco F.
> http://mfioretti.net
> --
> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
> software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>