World energy crunch as nuclear and oil both go wrong

Conrad

grimsalve wrote: »

Nah, we'll manage, afterall China only burns 600million tons of coal a day - it will all be fine and unchanging, rightyyyyyyy o:rotfl:

ninky_2

Conrad wrote: »

We are going to run out of everything from fish stocks in the South China sea to rainforest replaced by monocrops such as the crispy making palm oil (it's in everything now).

One way or another Earth is going to bite back, and we are going to have serious resource issues.

Did you know all the gold ever mined will fit into just 3 Olympic swimming pools. If Microsoft and co get thier way, which they will, we are all going to be monster consumers - whole rooms turned into a PC in effect- what is it with these people that need an electronic diet 24/7? Soon whole walls in your home will show a user changeable image say of the Alps - God it's all so banal.

It's actualy comical in a way that Mankind is stubling into this pathetc gadget oriented lifestyle with !!!!!!!!s on shows like 'Click' basically implying our lives are not whole without an endless parade of gadgets and updates.

Bring on, I look forward to a more old school society actualy, when we grow up a bit.

showing your age. i'd say that more tv shows are presenting some 'back to basics' fogey-ish idyll....from escape to the country to river cottage to handmade home. middle aged bourgeois lifestyle !!!!!! the lot of it.

i mentioned in another post but if we all went back to riding on horseback it would be even less sustainable than current car use. lifestyles of the past are even less sustainable for current population levels than lifestyles of now. the only thing that has allowed population growth is technological changes. the more simple lifestyles of the past are not the answer. in fact they would create an even bigger problem.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

i mentioned in another post but if we all went back to riding on horseback it would be even less sustainable than current car use.

Not only not sustainable, but not possible.

When transportation and agriculture depended on using working animals, a very high proportion of all the world's food supply was consumed by those working animals.

As society has moved from using working animals that run on food to machines than run on oil or electricity, we should have theoretically been left with a huge food supply surplus. However, since we've put billions more people on the planet since the dawn of the industrial age, there is no spare food supply available to move back to an economy based on using donkeys instead of cars or horses instead of tractors.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Not only not sustainable, but not possible.

When transportation and agriculture depended on using working animals, a very high proportion of all the world's food supply was consumed by those working animals.

As society has moved from using working animals that run on food to machines than run on oil or electricity, we should have theoretically been left with a huge food supply surplus. However, since we've put billions more people on the planet since the dawn of the industrial age, there is no spare food supply available to move back to an economy based on using donkeys instead of cars or horses instead of tractors.

this is the issue. we short sightedly keep filling our increased capacity with more people. a move to nuclear will just do the same. palliative at best.

Alter_ego

Conrad wrote: »

China only burns 600million tons of coal a day :rotfl:

OOH! you made that up!

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

this is the issue. we short sightedly keep filling our increased capacity with more people.

Try telling that to the Islamic world (or third world Catholic countries). They have already exceeded the carrying capacity of their land by a factor of ten in Saudi Arabia, nevertheless Allah keeps telling them to go forth and multiply!

MrEnglish

StevieJ wrote: »

So where do we go from here?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/8386829/World-energy-crunch-as-nuclear-and-oil-both-go-wrong.html

I wonder if more incentives for sola panels will come in now?

StevieJ

ninky wrote: »

terry nappies still need washing (energy and water use / detergent consumption). recycling requires large amounts of energy. even walking burns calories that require food (resources) to replace.

none of these things can solve the actual problem of just too many people.

Could be Nuclear energy though, BTW what do people do before nappies :eek:

ILW

We could just breed smaller people, they require less energy. Either that or cull the lardies who over eat the whole time. I've just saved the world!

ninky_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

No life, not even bacteria, can survive without water.

where did i say we didn't need water? i merely implied that humans need rising sea levels like a hole in the head. they may well benefit other species however.