metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 731
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
Why do we need so many elements (and energy) ?
Not a real chemistry topic, but at least scientific related to chemistry.
Since long (and recently more) I am wondering why we are using so much energy and so many elements as resources. The energy transition to battery
storage (and nuclear fusion still under development) needs a considerable part of the periodic table.
No, I am not against energy transition, it goes too slow in my opinion: we do need it to limit climate change. But what I completely miss in the
discussions: do we really need that the per capita energy consumption is still rising ?
We just use way too much energy, because it is still (particularly for companies, not for individuals) far too cheap.
Do we really need that much 24/7 (or actually 12/7: all night) lighting fading out the starry sky and disrupting wildlife and bird migration ?
Fast satellite internet from lots of (future) space debris which might finally pollute low Earth orbit with space debris.
Do we need an internet connection for the simplest things, aircon in not so hot countries, cars when destinations can be reached easily on public
transport or bikes, etc ? Disposable plastic packaging for products which can be wrapped in paper or refillable bottles ?
Goods transport half a world away is more common than in the local neighborhood.
Air tickets don't have sales tax and fuel excise because of the 80 year old Chicago Convention.
Update a cellphone within two years because the supplier does not want to allow repair and software updates ?
All these things make a (yes, chemical) mess of our world as these mostly start with energy intensive mining and transport and end up a e-waste. No
wonder that there are supply chain issues of critical elements and even more common elements like Si become critical. This will become (far) worse
when we continue this way.
Mankind should first target decrease on energy and resource consumption, beside energy transition to continue to have a decent life on Earth with 8 pr
perhaps 10 billion people.
What are your opinions ?
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2661
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I agree that using too much power is silly, but most of that is used by individuals, who want to go places (drive their cars, take airplanes, go on
cruises...), heat and cool their homes, keep their food cold and hot as needed, and use PCs, phones, lighting, etc. Corporations use power, but
most in the process of providing things and services to people. And the government uses a lot for things like airport radar, military, millions of
bureaucrats in offices, etc.
I would like to see an end to most street lights, especially on highways, where they are not needed. But other people keep demanding more lighting to
prevent crime or such, which seems not to be working.
But companies sell things because people buy them, I-phones, hamburgers, bottled water,gasoline, and more are all purchased by people, and most seem
to be in a panic when they are not available. People say that they want solar, but are unwilling to not use power at night, when the sun don't shine.
And I hear people say that someone (government, charity, parents, others, etc) should provide them free electricity, medical care, food, internet,
etc, all of which is used more when free....
Each person on the earth uses a certain amount of oxygen, water, food, energy, etc. The issue is that with that number rising quickly in the last
100 years, that is demanding more and more energy, water, food, and material items to provide for them, and most people I have meet want more of all
of it. Cars now have more features than most houses did just 50 years ago. Most have video screens, airbags, computers, AC, and so much more.
If you can first demonstrate that you will give up heating and cooling, cars, planes, cell phones, etc, then you should next try to convince other
people to do the same. If all of the people complaining about global warming would actually change THEIR activities, it might help a little, but with
China and India building dozens of new coal burning plants, it still won't make a difference in the world, as they are building new fossil fuel power
plants far faster than the west can decommission them, and then our grid will soon fail, as people have this crazy idea of using power at night and
when the wind is not blowing. (See link below for more details and discussion)
Don't get me wrong, I have made a real effort to cut my power use in half over the last few years and cut back, but I see that most people won't even
turn off lights when they are gone or not drive a 10 mpg truck to commute alone to work each day. So the people on the earth will eventually run
out of fossil fuels and other resources and create a new crisis which will eventually lower the earth's population. Like the game of Life for those
who know it.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4639406-the-beginning-of-th...
energy-realities
( I deleted this as it was just too large, happy to report it elsewhere.)
[Edited on 14-10-2023 by Dr.Bob]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Energy consumption = living standard
It's that simple.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Texium
|
Thread Moved
13-10-2023 at 11:37 |
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2698
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
The problem is that there is no political economy for decreasing consumption. It is generally interpreted by populists as the proles will see their
consumption constrained while the ruling class continues to prosper, and by liberal idealists as the upper quintile will embrace personal activism
while the hoi polloi make small compromises. Nobody has a system to determine and enforce who will give up what.
The problem with biking to work is that my clothes would get wet and dirty and I'd get to work looking like a bum. Not everywhere is Lima where it's
never hot and it never rains. Though I have considered moving to Lima, but I don't think that can work for everyone.
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
There was just a report from our national statisticians (CBS) that per person the energy consumption in the Netherlands is back to the level of that
in 1970. The consumption per person and in absolute numbers has been decreasing since 2013.
Houses are being insulated, cars are getting more efficient and since the war in Ukraine people have been saving on their gas consumption. Also raised
taxes on gas and oil products help.
So it is possible, as long as energy is (made) expensive enough.
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2661
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I agree that it is possible to reduce energy usage, going down about 50% on average would be very doable, in due time, in developed nations. But the
overall usage of evergy will still go up as China and India alone are growing their energy usage at a fast pace, and also growing their use of fossil
fuels quickly. I wish I could see a simple solution to countering their energy use growth, but cutting to net zero in the western world in a hurry
will only destroy our countries while making it easier for others to grow quicker. It is hypocritical to buy solar panels and EV from China to cut
our emissions, if the production of them in China is creating massive emissions there.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 731
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob  | | I agree that it is possible to reduce energy usage, going down about 50% on average would be very doable, in due time, in developed nations. But the
overall usage of evergy will still go up as China and India alone are growing their energy usage at a fast pace, and also growing their use of fossil
fuels quickly. I wish I could see a simple solution to countering their energy use growth, but cutting to net zero in the western world in a hurry
will only destroy our countries while making it easier for others to grow quicker. It is hypocritical to buy solar panels and EV from China to cut
our emissions, if the production of them in China is creating massive emissions there. |
Right, but a considerable part of the energy use increase in China is because our western products are made in China, so the carbon footprint of China
is actually our footprint.
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2661
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's my point, many people don't want pollution here, but they ignore it in other places, even if it for their products. Conversely, they are
happy to drive all industry out of the US, but then complain about low wages and no jobs (at least before covid). If we lower our energy usage but
drive theirs up, it will not solve global warming.
|
|
|
6dthjd1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 63
Registered: 30-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob | I agree that using too much power is silly, but most of that is used by individuals, who want to go places (drive their cars, take airplanes, go on
cruises...), heat and cool their homes, keep their food cold and hot as needed, and use PCs, phones, lighting, etc. Corporations use power, but
most in the process of providing things and services to people. And the government uses a lot for things like airport radar, military, millions of
bureaucrats in offices, etc.
I would like to see an end to most street lights, especially on highways, where they are not needed. But other people keep demanding more lighting to
prevent crime or such, which seems not to be working.
But companies sell things because people buy them, I-phones, hamburgers, bottled water,gasoline, and more are all purchased by people, and most seem
to be in a panic when they are not available. People say that they want solar, but are unwilling to not use power at night, when the sun don't shine.
And I hear people say that someone (government, charity, parents, others, etc) should provide them free electricity, medical care, food, internet,
etc, all of which is used more when free....
Each person on the earth uses a certain amount of oxygen, water, food, energy, etc. The issue is that with that number rising quickly in the last
100 years, that is demanding more and more energy, water, food, and material items to provide for them, and most people I have meet want more of all
of it. Cars now have more features than most houses did just 50 years ago. Most have video screens, airbags, computers, AC, and so much more.
If you can first demonstrate that you will give up heating and cooling, cars, planes, cell phones, etc, then you should next try to convince other
people to do the same. If all of the people complaining about global warming would actually change THEIR activities, it might help a little, but with
China and India building dozens of new coal burning plants, it still won't make a difference in the world, as they are building new fossil fuel power
plants far faster than the west can decommission them, and then our grid will soon fail, as people have this crazy idea of using power at night and
when the wind is not blowing. (See link below for more details and discussion)
Don't get me wrong, I have made a real effort to cut my power use in half over the last few years and cut back, but I see that most people won't even
turn off lights when they are gone or not drive a 10 mpg truck to commute alone to work each day. So the people on the earth will eventually run
out of fossil fuels and other resources and create a new crisis which will eventually lower the earth's population. Like the game of Life for those
who know it.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4639406-the-beginning-of-th...
energy-realities
( I deleted this as it was just too large, happy to report it elsewhere.)
[Edited on 14-10-2023 by Dr.Bob] |
While the Chinese are rapidly building new plants quickly the per capita resource consumption of a Chinese person is lower than that of the west.
Even in more developed areas of China this is still true IIRC.
Their factories I know less of but there factories are partly a response to external demand.
In India the consumption is even less by people per capita
|
|
|
6dthjd1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 63
Registered: 30-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk | There was just a report from our national statisticians (CBS) that per person the energy consumption in the Netherlands is back to the level of that
in 1970. The consumption per person and in absolute numbers has been decreasing since 2013.
Houses are being insulated, cars are getting more efficient and since the war in Ukraine people have been saving on their gas consumption. Also raised
taxes on gas and oil products help.
So it is possible, as long as energy is (made) expensive enough. |
What was daily consumption like for an average person living in the Netherlands in 1970?
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Have a look here.
154 GJ per person per year.
|
|
|
dettoo456
Hazard to Others
Posts: 179
Registered: 12-9-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
Western populations are already in a death spiral (literally), so I don’t think the issue of ‘over-consumption’ will hit by the time a
significant chunk of people are in the ground. The issue that others have pointed out though is that of pollution that lingers far past its use-by
date. Single use products and materials like batteries will keep far longer than their users will and cause issues for future animals and people.
I don’t think energy consumption is as much of an issue as material consumption - I can consume literally millions of J in an instant by blowing up
some PETN, but since it produces little to no byproduct (and green byproducts at that), it isn’t a big deal that I consumed a lot of energy. If
instead I bought 20 pounds of plastic bags that i use once and then throw away, I barely use any energy but I leave a massive amount of waste for
someone else to deal with.
Conclusion… burn trash.
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2661
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you really want to see the details on energy use and sustainability, there is a somewhat depressing series and book on it, called the Crash Course.
Chris Martenson talks about the sustainability of the finite earth to the infinite growth of humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eidQTDjQ5gw
He also wrote some books:
https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Course-Unsustainable-Economy-En...
It is not a perfect analysis, but is so realistic and close enough that it is depressing.
Basically he points out that our finite resources cannot sustain infinite growth. You can argue over the exact dates when we will overwhelm the
earth's ability to provide for us, but it is clear that we cannot just keep consuming everything forever at a growing rate. Sadly, the ability to
change or reduce our usage is much harder and slower than our ability to procreate.
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2698
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Most such analyses are tearing down a strawman. They assume a constant year-on-year growth rate and try to extrapolate to show that we will hit a
wall.
In fact the global growth rate is variable and slower than it was a century ago. If there is a physical limit of some kind, we would expect growth to
become more difficult gradually as we approach it, not all at once. This is how normal physical systems work, and human society in aggregate is still
a physical system. The argument that human affairs inevitably produce analytic trajectories was formalized in a different context by Leslie Lamport:
https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/buridan.pdf
[Edited on 04-20-1969 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
