[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Ryan Lanham]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Nick Taylor <nick1181 at googlemail.com>wrote:

>  Whether people like it or not, that's the reality of power consumption
>> and needs: it boils down to fossil fuels vs nuclear for the majority of the
>> world's power generation.
>>
>
> Still, Amory Lovins appears to think otherwise
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxreFrUHho
>
> Any particular reason why the "reality of power consumption" that exists in
> your head is any more credible than that which exists in his?
>
>

Amory Lovins is a great man.  One of the truly great energy minds.  I think
the reality of his statements are very much long term.  In the short run, it
is fossil versus nuclear.  So pick your poison.  One had better know clearly
which to prefer.  If you know and understand the issues...it isn't close.
Nuclear is vastly superior.

By the way, solar uses more trace minerals than almost any other
application.  It is becoming the world leader of trace mineral production.
Photovoltaic (as it should be called) is a chemical process that is very
problematical at a number of levels--from manufacturing waste to post-system
waste to use of some real ugly chemicals and materials.  Passive solar is of
course just great...but it provides no energy.  It merely displaces
production (which is super great but not enough.)

Solar thermal (passive, OTEC) etc. is an undoubted key part of a long term
future.  It isn't going to be a primary system...possibly OTEC could be but
that is 30-60 years away at earliest.

Fusion has been just around the corner for 40 years.  It still isn't close.
I've talked to the scientists and encourage everyone to do it.  It was just
last year that they achieved more energy out than in.  The whole
conceptualization of the technology may be wrong.

Realistically, hydrogen (or ammonia) are the likely winners if the planet is
to survive and humans are to live in a way with big networks, big
electronics, big production of steel and aluminum, lots of food, etc.
Electrolysis or natural gas are the best ways to make hydrogen.  Both have
big problems.  Electrolysis needs tons of electricity.  It also needs huge
amounts of fresh water.  OTEC provides those, but few other ideas do.

People will likely not be travelling much in the future--so you better
settle where you plan to be.  Goods will be more localized and energy
conservation will be a constant battle everywhere.  But those issues are
still 40 years off.

The real issue now is carbon.  If carbon is not limited while still not
destroying the economies of the world, there will be chaos and probably 100s
of millions of needless deaths within 25 years.  It will get worse from
there.  Food regions will dry out, fisheries will be exhausted, and raising
protein on this planet will be very problematical.

Only the uninformed fight nuclear as far as I am concerned.  Further, it is
politically feasible right now.  It IS the path to electric vehicles.  It
should of course be bypassed as soon as possible which is what I mean by
minimized.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/4fe22865/attachment.html>