EPTOn July 08 2009 06:28 Torenhire wrote:
That would be an amazing way to end the world.
That would be an amazing way to end the world.
This. so much.
How will the world end! - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ryuu_
United States1266 Posts
This. so much. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
If this is al tl;dr, skip the quotes part and check the part after "this is all besides the point". On July 08 2009 05:37 travis wrote: solar energy from satellites Honestly don't know a lot about this. Sounds pie in the sky though. Takes a lot of energy to get satellites up. solar energy from grids on the ground Solar cells and the circuitry to support them take a lot of energy to make and are hugely ineffecient. There's room for improvement here. geothermal energy This is only remotely feasible in places like Iceland. I don't mean that you can't get energy, but it's capable of a negligable percentage of what we get now. tidal energy or hydro Tidal energy is capable of supplying approximately 7 percent of the US current total usage link, and effects are unknown. Taking energy out of waves will affect shoreline dynamics, in the same way putting up enough wind farms to supply our energy would alter the weather link . Hydro is basically maxed out here. Not a lot of places are going to accommodate massive new dams. wind energy see above. or even crazy shit like antimatter and cold fusion That would have to be developed first, and would have to produce more energy than it takes to get it going. Might as bank on aliens giving some wonder tech. If it happens, great. Still, see below. On July 08 2009 05:48 Caller wrote: That's just it though. In response to a decreasing supply of oil, prices will rise Right, I addressed that. Continually rising prices for food is something mankind, particularly the poorer portions, will be hard pressed to deal with. There have been huge problems with it already, and if your answer is that having even bigger food supply problems will be what keep us from using all the oil, well shit. and soon it will also be more economical to adapt to other sources of energy. They will become more economical than oil, but the question is if they will become economical enough. Will you be able to get more energy out than you put in? And will it be anywhere close to what we are currently getting from oil? There really isn't anything yet even theoretically capable of that, except for coal which brings its own problems. What about a new source of energy? Just a sec, let me conjure one up What about direct transformation of matter into energy? Sounds like fission and fusion. Fusion is not yet feasible, fission is, but we'd have to see a lot more of it. Uranium is also a finite resource. **but all of this is beside the point** Even if all of these sources combined were capable of supplying our energy needs, Crops are not treated with solar/hydro/geothermal pesticides and fertilizers. Cars, trucks, tractors, boats, do not run off of solar or wind or hydro power. The infrastructure would have to be overhauled, reconstructed, using the existing infrastructure while it is still functional. This turnover is not happening yet and at some point it will be too late. Without planning ahead and serious government stiff-arming, it won't make economic sense to invest in new infrastructure until it is more economical than the old. But that is precisely when the new infrastructure will be needed. Lag for necessary research and widespread implementation will be cutting things very very close. And like I've alluded to, we aren't anywhere near that point yet, and already we are living between higher prices for everything and depression. How's it going to be then during the scramble to retrofit our entire infrastructure? In the end though, I think people are seriously overestimating the energy density in alternative sources, which comes nowhere near rivaling the energy density of coal. For example to provide as much energy as we now use, solar panels would need to cover 220,000 square kilometers. They currently cover 10 square kilometers link. And if we wait until that is more economical, the energy to build such an array (and create tractors and cars that can use what they produce) will come from where? The same applies to any other mentioned energy source. People have their heads in the sand. Me too; I'm not doing fuck-all about this because there is nothing I can do. To reiterate: look at the price of food recently, and what temporarily fixed it: a depression. Great choice, a real Scylla and Charybdis that. And that is with us nowhere near alternative energy sources being more economical than oil. As we approach that point and scramble to switch over, try and extrapolate how things will be then. Any solution will obviously involve heavy doses of using less energy, which is why I mentioned the end of leisure (as we are used to it). Computer manufacture, airline flight, these things take up huge amounts of energy that could otherwise go towards food. A world where everything is more expensive forever may not be the end of the world, or of mankind, but it won't be pleasant. Hopefully it is at least survivable for at least half of us. Anyway I'm not the biggest expert on this stuff (or any kind of expert at all); take it up with those who are if you disagree with me. Start by googling "Hubbert Peak". I'll stop shitting up this thread my a too plausible / not plausible / whatever theory (for time reasons, and because I honestly know nothing; I did none of the original research on this subject). | ||
|
ryuu_
United States1266 Posts
| ||
|
Abstruse
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Arkqn
France589 Posts
But seriously, if the world ends in 2012, there's gonna be something very unexpected that will blow us all.. and we would be all pretty fucked up like "zomg WTF" | ||
|
epicdoom
United States489 Posts
| ||
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 08 2009 07:15 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Edit: so my theory is being dogpiled. Let's do that to all the other ones too, and then we can feel perfectly safe and secure for 2012 whoo! If this is al tl;dr, skip the quotes part and check the part after "this is all besides the point". Honestly don't know a lot about this. Sounds pie in the sky though. Takes a lot of energy to get satellites up. Solar cells and the circuitry to support them take a lot of energy to make and are hugely ineffecient. There's room for improvement here. This is only remotely feasible in places like Iceland. I don't mean that you can't get energy, but it's capable of a negligable percentage of what we get now. Tidal energy is capable of supplying approximately 7 percent of the US current total usage link, and effects are unknown. Taking energy out of waves will affect shoreline dynamics, in the same way putting up enough wind farms to supply our energy would alter the weather link . Hydro is basically maxed out here. Not a lot of places are going to accommodate massive new dams. see above. That would have to be developed first, and would have to produce more energy than it takes to get it going. Might as bank on aliens giving some wonder tech. If it happens, great. Still, see below. Right, I addressed that. Continually rising prices for food is something mankind, particularly the poorer portions, will be hard pressed to deal with. There have been huge problems with it already, and if your answer is that having even bigger food supply problems will be what keep us from using all the oil, well shit. They will become more economical than oil, but the question is if they will become economical enough. Will you be able to get more energy out than you put in? And will it be anywhere close to what we are currently getting from oil? There really isn't anything yet even theoretically capable of that, except for coal which brings its own problems. Just a sec, let me conjure one up Sounds like fission and fusion. Fusion is not yet feasible, fission is, but we'd have to see a lot more of it. Uranium is also a finite resource. **but all of this is beside the point** Even if all of these sources combined were capable of supplying our energy needs, Crops are not treated with solar/hydro/geothermal pesticides and fertilizers. Cars, trucks, tractors, boats, do not run off of solar or wind or hydro power. The infrastructure would have to be overhauled, reconstructed, using the existing infrastructure while it is still functional. This turnover is not happening yet and at some point it will be too late. Without planning ahead and serious government stiff-arming, it won't make economic sense to invest in new infrastructure until it is more economical than the old. But that is precisely when the new infrastructure will be needed. Lag for necessary research and widespread implementation will be cutting things very very close. And like I've alluded to, we aren't anywhere near that point yet, and already we are living between higher prices for everything and depression. How's it going to be then during the scramble to retrofit our entire infrastructure? In the end though, I think people are seriously overestimating the energy density in alternative sources, which comes nowhere near rivaling the energy density of coal. For example to provide as much energy as we now use, solar panels would need to cover 220,000 square kilometers. They currently cover 10 square kilometers link. And if we wait until that is more economical, the energy to build such an array (and create tractors and cars that can use what they produce) will come from where? The same applies to any other mentioned energy source. People have their heads in the sand. Me too; I'm not doing fuck-all about this because there is nothing I can do. To reiterate: look at the price of food recently, and what temporarily fixed it: a depression. Great choice, a real Scylla and Charybdis that. And that is with us nowhere near alternative energy sources being more economical than oil. As we approach that point and scramble to switch over, try and extrapolate how things will be then. Any solution will obviously involve heavy doses of using less energy, which is why I mentioned the end of leisure (as we are used to it). Computer manufacture, airline flight, these things take up huge amounts of energy that could otherwise go towards food. A world where everything is more expensive forever may not be the end of the world, or of mankind, but it won't be pleasant. Hopefully it is at least survivable for at least half of us. Anyway I'm not the biggest expert on this stuff (or any kind of expert at all); take it up with those who are if you disagree with me. Start by googling "Hubbert Peak". I'll stop shitting up this thread my a too plausible / not plausible / whatever theory (for time reasons, and because I honestly know nothing; I did none of the original research on this subject). While I seriously doubt that the world will end, I do believe some kind of conflict is inevitable. The Earth is already about 5 billion people or so beyond its current carrying capacity. There will likely be conflict between the developed and the developing nations, and I half-expect the West to lose power while Asia takes over as the new center of the world. Malthusian theory, however, has failed many, many times, due to advances in technology. While I believe that developed nations will not suffer significantly, developing nations will be hard-pressed to maintain growth if not utter chaos and disaster. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On July 08 2009 07:15 MamiyaOtaru wrote: + Show Spoiler + Edit: so my theory is being dogpiled. Let's do that to all the other ones too, and then we can feel perfectly safe and secure for 2012 whoo! If this is al tl;dr, skip the quotes part and check the part after "this is all besides the point". On July 08 2009 05:37 travis wrote: solar energy from satellites Honestly don't know a lot about this. Sounds pie in the sky though. Takes a lot of energy to get satellites up. solar energy from grids on the ground Solar cells and the circuitry to support them take a lot of energy to make and are hugely ineffecient. There's room for improvement here. geothermal energy This is only remotely feasible in places like Iceland. I don't mean that you can't get energy, but it's capable of a negligable percentage of what we get now. tidal energy or hydro Tidal energy is capable of supplying approximately 7 percent of the US current total usage link, and effects are unknown. Taking energy out of waves will affect shoreline dynamics, in the same way putting up enough wind farms to supply our energy would alter the weather link . Hydro is basically maxed out here. Not a lot of places are going to accommodate massive new dams. wind energy see above. or even crazy shit like antimatter and cold fusion That would have to be developed first, and would have to produce more energy than it takes to get it going. Might as bank on aliens giving some wonder tech. If it happens, great. Still, see below. On July 08 2009 05:48 Caller wrote: That's just it though. In response to a decreasing supply of oil, prices will rise Right, I addressed that. Continually rising prices for food is something mankind, particularly the poorer portions, will be hard pressed to deal with. There have been huge problems with it already, and if your answer is that having even bigger food supply problems will be what keep us from using all the oil, well shit. and soon it will also be more economical to adapt to other sources of energy. They will become more economical than oil, but the question is if they will become economical enough. Will you be able to get more energy out than you put in? And will it be anywhere close to what we are currently getting from oil? There really isn't anything yet even theoretically capable of that, except for coal which brings its own problems. What about a new source of energy? Just a sec, let me conjure one up What about direct transformation of matter into energy? Sounds like fission and fusion. Fusion is not yet feasible, fission is, but we'd have to see a lot more of it. Uranium is also a finite resource. **but all of this is beside the point** Even if all of these sources combined were capable of supplying our energy needs, Crops are not treated with solar/hydro/geothermal pesticides and fertilizers. Cars, trucks, tractors, boats, do not run off of solar or wind or hydro power. The infrastructure would have to be overhauled, reconstructed, using the existing infrastructure while it is still functional. This turnover is not happening yet and at some point it will be too late. Without planning ahead and serious government stiff-arming, it won't make economic sense to invest in new infrastructure until it is more economical than the old. But that is precisely when the new infrastructure will be needed. Lag for necessary research and widespread implementation will be cutting things very very close. And like I've alluded to, we aren't anywhere near that point yet, and already we are living between higher prices for everything and depression. How's it going to be then during the scramble to retrofit our entire infrastructure? In the end though, I think people are seriously overestimating the energy density in alternative sources, which comes nowhere near rivaling the energy density of coal. For example to provide as much energy as we now use, solar panels would need to cover 220,000 square kilometers. They currently cover 10 square kilometers link. And if we wait until that is more economical, the energy to build such an array (and create tractors and cars that can use what they produce) will come from where? The same applies to any other mentioned energy source. People have their heads in the sand. Me too; I'm not doing fuck-all about this because there is nothing I can do. To reiterate: look at the price of food recently, and what temporarily fixed it: a depression. Great choice, a real Scylla and Charybdis that. And that is with us nowhere near alternative energy sources being more economical than oil. As we approach that point and scramble to switch over, try and extrapolate how things will be then. Any solution will obviously involve heavy doses of using less energy, which is why I mentioned the end of leisure (as we are used to it). Computer manufacture, airline flight, these things take up huge amounts of energy that could otherwise go towards food. A world where everything is more expensive forever may not be the end of the world, or of mankind, but it won't be pleasant. Hopefully it is at least survivable for at least half of us. Anyway I'm not the biggest expert on this stuff (or any kind of expert at all); take it up with those who are if you disagree with me. Start by googling "Hubbert Peak". I'll stop shitting up this thread my a too plausible / not plausible / whatever theory (for time reasons, and because I honestly know nothing; I did none of the original research on this subject). Whoa whoa whoa, lets back up a step here. You just attempted to backhand every single alternative energy theory we have in play, and claim these are NOT sufficient to combined power the globe. And you admit you are "not any kind of expert at all". Do you see what you are saying? You know next to nothing about these technologies other than the fact that "they are not currently powering the globe and therefore never will", yet you are claiming doom and gloom for the future of humanity. Yes, fossil fuels will run out, but at this time they are not within 100 years of doing so, plenty of time to devote resources towards finding alternatives the uses of petroleum of which you speak. As the oil reserves lower the economic incentive will grow to develop alternative sources of energy, but this is not going to happen overnight. Our lights are not going to shut off and suddenly scientists everywhere utter a collective "oh shit" while they scramble to bring solar efficiency up. This is the kind of change that works over 100+ years, not in a month or even 10 years. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
| ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
And I read somewhere that during that year, the sun's solar flare is at its biggest and earth is at the closest its been at the sun for the longest time and we'll be soaked in radiation and die or something like dat. | ||
|
SirGlinG
Sweden933 Posts
| ||
|
p4ge
Canada160 Posts
| ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
Roughly four days after the development and release of the first VR porn scenes, every man is non-stop hooking himself up to the new, advanced technology, so much so that they starve themselves of food. Without men, the world plummets into chaos and the women are left running around flailing their arms about psychotically. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
On July 08 2009 09:09 D4EMON wrote: hadron collider induced black hole, sucks us all up, and we result in a new galaxy which manages to create it's own life forms which go through the same process we go through billions of years from now you're not that smart are you? :D | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
| ||
|
Cpt.beefy
Ireland799 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
take your pick. | ||
|
Cpt.beefy
Ireland799 Posts
| ||
|
Ym1r
United States1164 Posts
| ||
| ||
