Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How long can society sustain its growing population?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too
I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.
That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?
The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.
I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.
Consensus isn't how we do science.
In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too
I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.
That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?
The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.
I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.
Consensus isn't how we do science.
In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...
Competing hypothesis with evidence, these are normal fluctuations and not human influenced.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."
Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.
That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too
I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.
OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.
1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this changemidwesterner85 wrote: »It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.
That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?
The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.
I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.
Consensus isn't how we do science.
In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...
Competing hypothesis with evidence, these are normal fluctuations and not human influenced.
So you're not arguing that the climate is not changing at some pace, but that is not related to human activity... Hmm
Anyway, the more interesting aspect is that "so what" aspect. How do societies respond to that change? What are the sources of conflict in the future? How will those that currently have power hang on to it, and how will others try to break that power and gain it themselves?
You alluded upthread to how that power plays out in aid distribution, and we see a kleptocracy in Russia, with clear indications of the same elsewhere. Conflict is more likely than collaboration to adapt to the changing environment.
Most of the solutions described in this thread require a greater degree of social conformance than is likely in large populations, so how much of an increase in authoritarianism will we see? What effects will we see from greater concentration, and what vulnerabilities does that create?0 -
Rerun the numbers with today's population:
http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~mlerma/courses/math214-2-04f/notes/c2-logist.pdf0 -
I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise0
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field.
Nonsense. The entirety of the US was "bumf*ck nowhere" a few hundred years ago, and now hundreds of millions of people live in areas where there was zero infrastructure originally.
Florida was mostly a useless swamp and Arizona was an uninhabitable desert at the beginning of the 20th century - air conditioning was invented and now almost 30 million people live in those states, and real estate is at a premium. Las Vegas was a place with no existing water supply and yet built an infrastructure that will accommodate 40 million tourists this year. Almost any place in the world (within reason) can be developed into a thriving living area with sustainable resources if people have the vision to develop it.
You are acting like people who live in a certain area are supported by only that area....they aren't. The population of New York city is 8.2 million people and they live in ~450 sq miles of land....but they aren't supported by only 450 sq miles of land. NYC didn't become a mega-city because the land they live on is really good at growing potatoes, it is because it was a hub for the transport of resources from elsewhere...other land.
Even people who live in a 1 acre plot don't receive all of their resources from that 1 acre...they are supported by much more land than that.
Pointing to a bunch of empty land relative to populated land and acting like that empty land would support more people based on how much land people currently physically occupy is not realistic at all.
A few hundred years ago the population of the United States was a lot smaller than it is today. We may live in densely populated zones but we certainly use a lot more land than we did back then.
We "live on top of eachother" again because it is extremely inefficient to ship goods long distances when instead you can ship them to a single location that can then distribute to a large number of people. That should be pretty obvious. Spreading everyone out would require a LOT more energy usage.
The empty land I described in the initial post is no different than the land in the population centers around it before they were populated. The same habitability exists, it is just a matter of having people move there and developing it.
Just taking a random look at a US map, Conception, Missouri (pop 198) is in the center of 4 more populated cities (Lincoln (280k), Omaha (446k), Kansas City (480k), and Des Moines (215k)). There are numerous reasons why some areas in the American West became populated and others didn't, but Conception could easily have been (and still could be) identical to one of these larger 4 cities if enough people wanted to move there.
The fact that there is overcrowding in urban areas isn't a byproduct of scarce available resources in other areas, it is the byproduct of the reality that most people would rather live somewhere where everything has been completely established versus going through the effort of moving to a rural area with fewer people but also fewer conveniences available.
If thousands of people move to Conception (my apologies to anyone that may live here, I know nothing about it except that it is extremely small), the city tax revenue increases, they hire more police and firemen, they pave more streets, maybe a Walmart, Starbucks, and Home Depot get built, more people become willing to move here, more houses are built, more taxes are collected, more roads are paved, more businesses are started, etc., keep repeating, and years later, 100,000 people live here just as comfortably as they do in other similarly sized cities.
Maybe I am not explaining my point well.
If you have an area of land that is 100 units by 100 units and you have 1 million people living there but they are all in an area that is 10 units by 10 units large you can't just automatically assume that there is plenty of resource to support a much larger population of 100 million people simply on the basis that the people are densely populated. The fact that much 99% of that 100 x 100 area is "empty" doesn't mean that the population can increase 100x.
In your example of Conception growing in population my point would be that as it grows the amount of resources it requires to be brought in increases. A city requires so much more land to operate than the land it is sitting on. It doesn't matter where that land is, that isn't the point....its that more land is required with a larger population and I'm not jus talking about the land that population physically occupies....I'm talking about the land required to support that population.
We build farms where there are good growing conditions. We build cities at hubs of commerce. The fact that you can build a city where the farming isn't great isn't relevant.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise
Yeah I don't think so either. I think people who say X years from now Y people will be starving because population will be A and the world can only support B are really stretching.
I think the answer falls somewhere between "OMG we are all going to die" and "look at all this empty land, we are fine".3 -
It is fairly clear that world population will begin to decline around 2050-2060, due to birth rate declines, and could be accelerated with expanded quality education for women. Once that women realize their ability to choose and control their own lives, the population explosion is over.
The big problem will be finding a post capatilism economic structure that can succeed for the masses during a shrinking world population. Could be a much bigger problem than over population, IMHO.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise
With reference to which affect? That the global climate is warming up or that population growth is a factor?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise
With reference to which affect? That the global climate is warming up or that population growth is a factor?
Also curious.0 -
The ending of population growth will be the major problem for our current economic system, IMO. Constant expansion of production and marketing is the key to success for free market, or even managed market capitalism. It has always been obvious this model would have to ultimately fail. It is a form of social, economic cancer that must finally kill the host.
Climate change might possibly be part of the solution, provided people at the latter part of this century are sufficiently creative and flexible in coming up with an alternative economic structure combining high tech and automation to provide security and creative opportunity for the masses of humanity.
Doesn't sound highly probable, does it?2 -
This content has been removed.
-
TheRoadDog wrote: »Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.
I think three years in a row of longevity decreases in the USA makes your point.
Birth rates drop like a rock as societies learn few children can improve one's standard of living. China made news this week talking about taking the limits off of number of children in a family so they do not fade away as a world power like Japan and Italy are doing today due to the negative birth rate. Governments are paying couples to make more babies but it is not working out that well I read. Governments will be changing hands in much of Europe over the next 50 years we read and some in less than half of that time table.
To this day I do not understand the need of man to call for the end of all times.
2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.
...satellite power?
Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,
Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.
Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.
There is a reason that a lot of those empty spaces are inhabited, they are almost inhabitable for a large population. Almost nothing can be grown or harvested so everything will have to be imported. I have a 20 acre farm in Washington State and we raise or grow a large majority of everything our family eats. My in-laws live in Wyoming and have 60 acres and the same greenhouse but their land can't support the amount of livestock my 20 can. Their growing season is limited due to weather and soil conditions as well. Our country has such diverse climates that certain areas just aren't sustainable for large populations.
On the energy side of this topic we will be opening a can of worms due to opinions being seen as fact. I have worked in the power industry for over 10 years in various types of power plants and power distribution and the sad truth is unfortunately the majority of people out there are misinformed or have no idea how the electrical grid works. They only know when the flip on the switch the lights either come on or they don't and that is the extent of their actual knowledge. This is another problem that is overlooked when populations grow the demand for reliable power grows exponentially with the population.
The different types of energy, Solar, Hydro, Wind, Nuclear, Nat gas, Coal, bio burners all of them have certain requirements for space or types of sustainable fuel. All of these power sources come with pros and cons as well. If you locate a large solar plant in a remote area it can produce massive amounts of power when the sun is out but something such as clouds rolling in can dramatically decrease the production of the plant instantaneously. Wind farms are great in areas with substantial wind but the wind doesn't blow 24-7-365. Wind turbines are designed to run at a set speed so too much wind will cause a wind turbine to stop running to keep from over speeding which can lead to damage and other problems. Our battery technology is lacking for large reliable ways to store energy for even a small city let alone a large city. So even if we could harness all excess energy produced we would have no reliable way to store or distribute it to the grid. Coal power plants have become the main focus of most conversations when energy is concerned about pollution or burning non renewable fossil fuels. Yet all the batteries and solar panels being produced are made from rare earth metals that just like coal are not renewable.
The largest problem is all of the advances in technology are all driven by the desire for money, power and control. They are controlled by those who have or those who are most willing to take it or profit from it.
0 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.
...satellite power?
Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,
Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.
Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.
There is a reason that a lot of those empty spaces are inhabited, they are almost inhabitable for a large population. Almost nothing can be grown or harvested so everything will have to be imported. I have a 20 acre farm in Washington State and we raise or grow a large majority of everything our family eats. My in-laws live in Wyoming and have 60 acres and the same greenhouse but their land can't support the amount of livestock my 20 can. Their growing season is limited due to weather and soil conditions as well. Our country has such diverse climates that certain areas just aren't sustainable for large populations.
On the energy side of this topic we will be opening a can of worms due to opinions being seen as fact. I have worked in the power industry for over 10 years in various types of power plants and power distribution and the sad truth is unfortunately the majority of people out there are misinformed or have no idea how the electrical grid works. They only know when the flip on the switch the lights either come on or they don't and that is the extent of their actual knowledge. This is another problem that is overlooked when populations grow the demand for reliable power grows exponentially with the population.
The different types of energy, Solar, Hydro, Wind, Nuclear, Nat gas, Coal, bio burners all of them have certain requirements for space or types of sustainable fuel. All of these power sources come with pros and cons as well. If you locate a large solar plant in a remote area it can produce massive amounts of power when the sun is out but something such as clouds rolling in can dramatically decrease the production of the plant instantaneously. Wind farms are great in areas with substantial wind but the wind doesn't blow 24-7-365. Wind turbines are designed to run at a set speed so too much wind will cause a wind turbine to stop running to keep from over speeding which can lead to damage and other problems. Our battery technology is lacking for large reliable ways to store energy for even a small city let alone a large city. So even if we could harness all excess energy produced we would have no reliable way to store or distribute it to the grid. Coal power plants have become the main focus of most conversations when energy is concerned about pollution or burning non renewable fossil fuels. Yet all the batteries and solar panels being produced are made from rare earth metals that just like coal are not renewable.
The largest problem is all of the advances in technology are all driven by the desire for money, power and control. They are controlled by those who have or those who are most willing to take it or profit from it.
I also imagine there is the issue of the grid. I don't work in power so I certainly might be wrong so fee free to correct me but I assume too much power into the grid and it causes problems. Peak usage of electricity tends to be in the evening when solar isn't bringing in energy and solar is at its peak when the voltage drop on the grid is at its lowest. Also other power plants like nuclear or coal probably can't just be shut off, or if they can be shut off it is at HUGE cost and loss of efficiency. So what happens is if you get more and more of your energy from solar you end up having to turn off the connection to the solar plants during the day to avoid having to shutdown other powerplants that can't really be effectively shutdown and as such adding solar doesn't actually get you anything.
Solar would only really work if the plants fed massive batteries that could then be discharged into the grid at will when power was required but be stored when it was not. I certainly recognize the issue of power is a lot more complex than just "build more solar" but I was just referring to I think the rather obvious point that it is better to build solar on the ground than to shoot it into space.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.
About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.
We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.
We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.
...satellite power?
Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,
Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.
Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.
There is a reason that a lot of those empty spaces are inhabited, they are almost inhabitable for a large population. Almost nothing can be grown or harvested so everything will have to be imported. I have a 20 acre farm in Washington State and we raise or grow a large majority of everything our family eats. My in-laws live in Wyoming and have 60 acres and the same greenhouse but their land can't support the amount of livestock my 20 can. Their growing season is limited due to weather and soil conditions as well. Our country has such diverse climates that certain areas just aren't sustainable for large populations.
On the energy side of this topic we will be opening a can of worms due to opinions being seen as fact. I have worked in the power industry for over 10 years in various types of power plants and power distribution and the sad truth is unfortunately the majority of people out there are misinformed or have no idea how the electrical grid works. They only know when the flip on the switch the lights either come on or they don't and that is the extent of their actual knowledge. This is another problem that is overlooked when populations grow the demand for reliable power grows exponentially with the population.
The different types of energy, Solar, Hydro, Wind, Nuclear, Nat gas, Coal, bio burners all of them have certain requirements for space or types of sustainable fuel. All of these power sources come with pros and cons as well. If you locate a large solar plant in a remote area it can produce massive amounts of power when the sun is out but something such as clouds rolling in can dramatically decrease the production of the plant instantaneously. Wind farms are great in areas with substantial wind but the wind doesn't blow 24-7-365. Wind turbines are designed to run at a set speed so too much wind will cause a wind turbine to stop running to keep from over speeding which can lead to damage and other problems. Our battery technology is lacking for large reliable ways to store energy for even a small city let alone a large city. So even if we could harness all excess energy produced we would have no reliable way to store or distribute it to the grid. Coal power plants have become the main focus of most conversations when energy is concerned about pollution or burning non renewable fossil fuels. Yet all the batteries and solar panels being produced are made from rare earth metals that just like coal are not renewable.
The largest problem is all of the advances in technology are all driven by the desire for money, power and control. They are controlled by those who have or those who are most willing to take it or profit from it.
I also imagine there is the issue of the grid. I don't work in power so I certainly might be wrong so fee free to correct me but I assume too much power into the grid and it causes problems. Peak usage of electricity tends to be in the evening when solar isn't bringing in energy and solar is at its peak when the voltage drop on the grid is at its lowest. Also other power plants like nuclear or coal probably can't just be shut off, or if they can be shut off it is at HUGE cost and loss of efficiency. So what happens is if you get more and more of your energy from solar you end up having to turn off the connection to the solar plants during the day to avoid having to shutdown other powerplants that can't really be effectively shutdown and as such adding solar doesn't actually get you anything.
Solar would only really work if the plants fed massive batteries that could then be discharged into the grid at will when power was required but be stored when it was not. I certainly recognize the issue of power is a lot more complex than just "build more solar" but I was just referring to I think the rather obvious point that it is better to build solar on the ground than to shoot it into space.
Power plants such as Coal and definitely Nuclear are not designed to cycle off and on. A large coal fire plant can take 4-7 days to get to peak running temperatures. I know very little about Nuclear but the same steam theory applies to those plants and they are designed to run and stay running hot to be efficient. Having solar panels with easy access is definitely a better answer. The biggest problem with any type of energy is the loss due to increase heat. You lose generator efficiency and capabilities due to high temperatures. The same goes for solar panels. They run more efficiently and at peak when they are cool. Some companies are adding a demineralized water cooling system that cools the panels in the peak heat of the day to increase output and life of the panels as well.1 -
Have any of you energy establishment apologists paid attention to what Elon Musk has done in Australia with his battery systems?
Or, to any of the rapid innovation going on in battery technology?
Once you have efficient battery backup, the problems with sundown, wind variation and over production become a management problem in a complex system. IMHO
3 -
Westschmeis wrote: »Have any of you energy establishment apologists paid attention to what Elon Musk has done in Australia with his battery systems?
Or, to any of the rapid innovation going on in battery technology?
Once you have efficient battery backup, the problems with sundown, wind variation and over production become a management problem in a complex system. IMHO
The battery technology is definitely booming and has made huge leaps and bounds over the past few years. The battery systems for personal home is a great way to go. The biggest problem that the large majority of the population is going to run into is all the upfront costs associated with going with a solar or hybrid system. I had a company come out and run a solar and wind survey for 30 days on my property to see if either system would be beneficial for my investment. The wind would be a waste but the solar would be a great option since I have no large trees or structures to block the sunlight. Now I have a small farm so I have a slightly larger power use due to well pump cycling for water troughs and watering our greenhouse. So a system that would be large enough to run only what my farm consumes on a monthly basis was $38,000.00+ dollars. That includes the discounts from our state and federal tax credits. Plus since I work at a power plant my coworkers are state certified electricians so I would install the majority of the system myself which saves of $5,000 in labor costs. This system doesn't include a battery bank which would be another $5-8,000. So a complete stand alone system for my home and farm would cost upwards of $45,000 dollars. Now if I want to sell back excess power to the local utility I have to pay a monthly line usage fee and annual system inspection and certification from the PUD as well. In total after the $45k investment I would still be paying around $500 per year to the utility plus any costs with upkeep for my system. So for my personal setup I took everything into account including a annual increase in utility bills of 5% annually which this year it went up 8% so I was being generous and it would take between 7-8 years for my system to be paid for. Most systems come with a 10 year warranty which if maintained properly a system could last 20 years but there is typically around 1% annual loss due to aging of any system. Now the state does have financing options with very low guaranteed locked in interest rates of around 5% but they require 30% cash deposit and if you sell your home before the loan is completed you have 90 days to pay in full or suffer fines and penalties. So out of pocket upfront would cost $13,500. That is a lot of money for the average person to come up with in cash and add another monthly payment on. I am luckier than most because I sell hay, livestock, fruits and vegetables at my farm so I have a small income from my property whereas the average person make nothing.
2 -
Interesting that California passed a law requiring that all new homes built after Jan 1, 2020 must include a solar energy system. The building industry has said that it will add a minimum of $10K to the purchase cost of a home.
I'll constrain my comments strictly to those facts and not dig into the underlying issues, to avoid potentially stirring a *kitten*storm.1 -
On the other hand, I am negotiating with a solar farm developer in eastern Colorado for a 160 acre site, tied into the regional grid that would pay us about 150k per year. Not sure this is the best deal we can get, and we have time to gage future improvements on the technology.
This field is changing at the rate computers and the internet changed in the 90s.0 -
Interesting that California passed a law requiring that all new homes built after Jan 1, 2020 must include a solar energy system. The building industry has said that it will add a minimum of $10K to the purchase cost of a home.
I'll constrain my comments strictly to those facts and not dig into the underlying issues, to avoid potentially stirring a *kitten*storm.
At first I was going to say I was against that as I favor people having free choice in such matters but upon thinking about it more I guess really though how is that any different than emission standards on cars. We decided at somepoint that cars were polluting to much and required certain emission standards be met which of course required car manufactures to over-engineer their products and make them more expensive for the consumer who wasn't given a choice of a car that had high emissions but was cheaper. But I support that.
I guess my only concern if it is done stupidly, meaning new constructions slap on 10k worth of solar panels directly under a tree or on the north side just to meet the requirement with little thought to actual power production.3 -
*kitten*! When the choice is there, prior to design and construction, an owner can make an informed choice.1
-
To answer the opening question, fifty years tops.
Regarding the electric grid and batteries, there are people working on it.
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy/up-next
Population growth does go down with stability, improved health care and opportunity. That would be my preferred solution to population pressures.
I am not content to allow a natural plague to reduce population growth. *cough* Ebola *cough*. Surely we are better off learning how to contain, prevent, and eradicate plagues.
A sudden eradication of a large percentage of the population does not relieve pressure. It results in greater chaos and decay. *cough* Detroit *cough* A random plague is not selective on who it takes and frankly a world without Bill Nye is diminished.2 -
Very unlikely result, technology mostly solves those vectors.0
-
A burning question I have is how an economic system dependent on growth can be sustained as growth stabilizes then declines.
It seems to me that efficiency will be the only way to get more out of less.2 -
To answer the opening question, fifty years tops.
Regarding the electric grid and batteries, there are people working on it.
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy/up-next
Population growth does go down with stability, improved health care and opportunity. That would be my preferred solution to population pressures.
I am not content to allow a natural plague to reduce population growth. *cough* Ebola *cough*. Surely we are better off learning how to contain, prevent, and eradicate plagues.
A sudden eradication of a large percentage of the population does not relieve pressure. It results in greater chaos and decay. *cough* Detroit *cough* A random plague is not selective on who it takes and frankly a world without Bill Nye is diminished.
Your cough seems really bad! Could that be passive aggressive?? LOL1 -
Westschmeis wrote: »On the other hand, I am negotiating with a solar farm developer in eastern Colorado for a 160 acre site, tied into the regional grid that would pay us about 150k per year. Not sure this is the best deal we can get, and we have time to gage future improvements on the technology.
This field is changing at the rate computers and the internet changed in the 90s.
The field is changing and improving rapidly for sure.
I guess it depends on if you are going to be the owner of the solar farm or if you are the land owner and lease the land to the solar farm. If you are the owner of the solar farm 150k a year wont even cover the payment with no interest for a farm that size. If you are the land owner and lease to a farm 150k a year with zero time or effort put in for yourself is a good deal. That would be a drop in the bucket from the owners of the farms profits. A solar farm that size even on the cheap side would cost upwards of $56,000,000.00. It could produce about 64MW with current energy prices it would make about $9.6 million annually without subsidies from the state or feds.
I have to say this thread is a great way to burn time away on night shift. Makes the 12 hour shift fly by, LOL.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.
I think you are transfering your own personal experience with those around you in your culture in a developed nation and acting as if it applies to the majority of people who live in less developed areas. They experience of American's/Canadians/Europeans etc probably applies to about 10% of the total world population. I don't think the problem with the majority of humans on this planet is too much focus on luxuries. I'm just talking the basics like shelter, clothing and enough food and infrastructure to remain healthy and I don't think the people who are striving for those things are distracted by a "need" for a iPad or a carmel macchiato.
You are way more optimistic about the human race than I am. I am rooting for mother nature.
I'm rooting for humans because there are several of them I rather like. That is not to say I am rooting against nature, we are a part of nature and we require the environment to be a certain way in order to survive so of course it is in our best interest to maintain that. As for being optimistic I don't really think so, I just think for whatever reason it has become cool or edgy to openly root against our survival for whatever reason and to assume the worst of people even if the actual data doesn't support it.
I'm rooting for humans because I are one. Yes, I know that's bad grammar. No, I don't care.
To borrow a sentiment from a Penn and Teller bit.
I would personally kill every monkey on the planet by hand to cure a single heroin Junkie with AIDS.
And then you'd kill every lion for the next addiction and problem and so on and so forth. When you run out of animals, I wonder how long it will be before you contemplate killing humans?1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »We could use a judgment day; just my opinion - the world would be a better place with say 50% cut
(Bias from living in one of the highest population dense parts of US)
Thanos...is that you?
I was wondering how quickly something like that would come up1 -
To answer the opening question, fifty years tops.
Regarding the electric grid and batteries, there are people working on it.
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy/up-next
Population growth does go down with stability, improved health care and opportunity. That would be my preferred solution to population pressures.
I am not content to allow a natural plague to reduce population growth. *cough* Ebola *cough*. Surely we are better off learning how to contain, prevent, and eradicate plagues.
A sudden eradication of a large percentage of the population does not relieve pressure. It results in greater chaos and decay. *cough* Detroit *cough* A random plague is not selective on who it takes and frankly a world without Bill Nye is diminished.
Ebola is the last thing you need to worry about as it kills hosts too rapidly. Ebola pre-dates most life forms on Earth, but was never a concern until world travel became common. It's the more insidious long term carriers/killers you need to be concerned about - influenza for example as it evolves at greater than four times the rate of ebola.
It's also the indirect things we should be concerned about. It isn't the virus that wipes out humanity, but the virus that wipes out the food source that wipes out humanity.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions