No need to worry about the extremes, you could just use stuff at lower rates maybe there is even some sort of optimum somewhere.
Also once we are through with this planet all the concentrated stuff will be spread out and the energy we will be willing to expend to process a mineral at a certain concentration will be less than is required. Then we will find something new (then we are not though with this planet and we can increase the future maximum possible moral outrage) or we are screwed (then we have achieved maximum spread, at this point the moral outrage will not be balanced by progress anymore).
Nowadays there are MLCCs at 220uF that could replace Tantalum in a number of applications, not to mention Niobium based capacitors that derive their raw materials from Brasil and Canada.
That patsari stove design looks simple enough to replicate, if you look at burn design lab you have to get the mass production of the steel stoves going first. Making bricks may still be energy intensive, but somehow it feels easier to do. For simple energy starved societies this should still be easier to do than setting up steel processing.
(Just to mention it, Spanish isn't my strong side)
Actually TLUD stoves would create char coal and burn the pyrolysis gases, now they are just wasted. The article is low on detail, here is a free ebook about stoves and their use in 3rd world countries:
I haven't seen this mentioned in the article which is somewhat thin on detail, but there is way more to stoves than the article explains. Also Burn Design Lab doesn't explicitly mention the TLUD design.
Well fortunately we live on a cylindrical planet where the area higher up is equal to the area towards the middle...
No, that was wrong let me have another positive look at this, we applied a step function to the input of a non-linear system with feed-backs and all. If we get lucky the temperatures move up so fast the Equatorians won't be able to catch up.
and staying that way throughout the next ice age, which wouldn't have to be called that way anymore. He also mentions that the equator may only get +3 degrees temperature improvement.
"Besides, of all ways whereby great wealth is acquired by good and honest means, none is more advantageous than mining; for although from fields which are well tilled (not to mention other things) we derive rich yields, yet we obtain richer products from mines; in fact, one mine is often much more beneficial to us than many fields. For this reason we learn from the history of nearly all ages that very many men have been made rich by the mines, and the fortunes of many kings have been much amplified thereby."
So we are mining energy instead of metals now, anybody know a good book about energy? Beyond that I first want to see a space efficient fusion reactor that works. What ever happened to Bussards wiffle ball reactor the US Navy swallowed?
I just don't see all that much flatness there, especially if you keep in mind that the system delay is ~40 years and that the trend hasn't really been broken by a temperature decline over a 40 year period. Also if you allow for some oscillation due to El Nino and other effects you would expect some ups and downs.
Also I don't really expect anyone to go down the depressive realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism) path to just have a better understanding of reality. Industrial society depends to 80% on fossil fuels and anyone suggesting that we stop it all in a relatively short time frame to prevent global warming and assorted feedback loops is completely nuts (which would probably be necessary). This is especially silly since our ancestors lived in far more difficult conditions without industrial society and took all the hardship of famine, war, disease, and death with ease. We will also deal with the results of global warming when we suffer from starvation, disease, and the occasional hot spell by dying with a smile on our faces knowing that we've had it all (not all of us, and poor people suffer first, but hey).
I admit I shouldn't have called the GP a Climate Zombie, but I really hate it when people paint our trajectory in rosy pictures or try to bullshit themselves (and me). Then again the Forbes articles I had a look at had much lower quality:
"These cherry-picked items are then assembled, condensed and highlighted in the Summaries for Policymakers which are calibrated to get prime-time and front page attention."
I'm always amused when politicians/journalists call guys like Manning or climate scientists attention seekers - "uh, oh another fish in our pond" I can hear them squeal. So that went into the bin much like the other article it linked to that was only slightly more sensible.
My last job was kinda odd this way, they were so frightened of me spending some extra time on my actual project to ensure it works in cases of bad input and to simplify some code that they laid me off. Of course, I was a bit cavalier about ensuring management backing.
I would call this a sign of the times, I currently work for some guy for free because he has an interesting project and yet I still don't want to fool around with stuff that needs doing but isn't highest priority. This is a startup and needs some help so I better show some manners.
But in general I squarely blame net energy decline for it. While it may look to some as if financial mismanagement caused this short term thinking craze that has gripped CEOs and associated ilk, I think it is actually the awareness that we really do have no future for projects mankind doesn't need anyway. If our world is turning into an energy starved wasteland much like the onion suggests: http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/66081-the-onion
then there is really no need for engineers who have a passion for their job and improving their knowledge of highly complex systems that depend on a working industrial society for its continued existence. Ultimately you will be overspecialized in a field that due to its multiple hard dependencies has an increased probability of failure in an environment that is characterized by shortages and sub standard performance because somebody tried to follow the growth paradigm by eating its own flesh, i.e. abused the trust still existing in society to sell a shoddy, substandard product while the usual drivers for growth like population growth and energy input have become unavailable.
>Rather than focusing on supposed "racism" about Oprah in a high-end fashion boutique they focus on the real issues, like the NSA spying scandal, Obama's drone wars, etc.
Personally I like terradaily.com because it only marginally covers any of the topics you mentioned.
Keiser must be dueling with the onion for shrillness. On second thought I like how onion news anchors always keep their cool, one of the women actually looked like she had been botoxed to prevent any accidental smiles.
Windows 3.?? made me switch to Linux. At some point Windows' reliance on the x86 real mode and other hacks had me look at the squandered possibilities of the M$ empire and also at possible ways out. While one of my buddies switched to OS/2 I switched to Linux.
Since then I had only in the rarest case any chance to actually program for Linux while on the job. Fortunately I mainly do embedded programming nowadays and have to work with VxWorks, VDK, or no operating system at all, which is great.
Actually the methane feedback is only one of the many positive feedback loops that are being discovered, there are also negative feedback loops however. One I have heard of is cloud formation that depends on increased availability of water vapour and the depletion of whatever carbon stock that has been accumulated. The cloud formation thing has been said to not be terribly effective and the depletion only happens after the methane/peat/other organic matter has been consumed.
Collecting methane from arctic shelves and permafrost regions probably requires covering those vast areas, the question is, does using the methane pay for covering the area where it bubbles up. To answer your question more directly, methane is ~100x worse than CO2 during creation and this drops to 20x averaged over a 100year lifespan from what I've heard. The arctic methane emergency group has some ideas about it, but thanks to the other global feedback loops the problem becomes far more complex than just burning of the methane.
What is the energy return on investment for space colonies? Lets list a few points: + 24h sunlight, possibly in Mercury orbit can provide energy - no hydrothermal processes for minerals enrichment (this is a big one if you like copper) + vacuum is non corrosive, and not mechanically stressing - harsh radiation environment - no known ecosystem exists we can fit into - vacuum poses heat transfer challenges + vacuum provides great insulation for heat and electricity - no oxygen to burn fossil fuels with (i.e. those carbonaceous condrites), especially since you have to create it first
I hope somebody can sort this out. What space colonization needs is a whole new approach to living. We cannot even manage that on earth, despite easier to solve problems. To get back to EROI, I wonder whether the lower ore concentration can be offset by more sunlight. Granted there are concentrated deposits of Aluminium and Titanium oxide on the moon, but how about NPK.
All those human actors that make the process so interesting are already poised to take action too, unfortunately I can't find any direct link to Snowden's info about military disaster preparations and action against green resistance movements, but hey there is talk about this.
Slashdot Mirror
No need to worry about the extremes, you could just use stuff at lower rates maybe there is even some sort of optimum somewhere.
Also once we are through with this planet all the concentrated stuff will be spread out and the energy we will be willing to expend to process a mineral at a certain concentration will be less than is required. Then we will find something new (then we are not though with this planet and we can increase the future maximum possible moral outrage) or we are screwed (then we have achieved maximum spread, at this point the moral outrage will not be balanced by progress anymore).
I hope this wasn't too convoluted.
Nowadays there are MLCCs at 220uF that could replace Tantalum in a number of applications, not to mention Niobium based capacitors that derive their raw materials from Brasil and Canada.
That patsari stove design looks simple enough to replicate, if you look at burn design lab you have to get the mass production of the steel stoves going first.
Making bricks may still be energy intensive, but somehow it feels easier to do. For simple energy starved societies this should still be easier to do than setting up steel processing.
(Just to mention it, Spanish isn't my strong side)
Actually TLUD stoves would create char coal and burn the pyrolysis gases, now they are just wasted. The article is low on detail, here is a free ebook about stoves and their use in 3rd world countries:
http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Understanding-Stoves-okt-10-webversion.pdf
and a slide show that explains the principle:
http://www.bme.gouv.ht/ugse/TCharbon%20Kara%20Grant%20-%20English.pdf
I haven't seen this mentioned in the article which is somewhat thin on detail, but there is way more to stoves than the article explains. Also Burn Design Lab doesn't explicitly mention the TLUD design.
Oh, here is another website:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
Somehow the UW related stuff is free of the TLUD principle, I wonder why. Also, you are wrong.
I sugar coated the icepick too much I guess.
Well fortunately we live on a cylindrical planet where the area higher up is equal to the area towards the middle ...
No, that was wrong let me have another positive look at this, we applied a step function to the input of a non-linear system with feed-backs and all. If we get
lucky the temperatures move up so fast the Equatorians won't be able to catch up.
There is one excited Ph. D. student who is talking about the prospect that it is getting warm in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw1GEp8UBj4
and staying that way throughout the next ice age, which wouldn't have to be called that way anymore. He also mentions that the equator may only get +3 degrees temperature improvement.
Har, har, good one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell#Recent_US_Navy-funded_work
Things are progressing it seems.
Also embodied energy that nature put into hydrothermal enrichment of ores, but this is more of a side show.
History says otherwise:
"Besides, of all ways whereby great wealth is acquired by good and honest means, none is more advantageous than mining; for although from fields which are well tilled (not to mention other things) we derive rich yields, yet we obtain richer products from mines; in fact, one mine is often much more beneficial to us than many fields. For this reason we learn from the history of nearly all ages that very many men have been made rich by the mines, and the fortunes of many kings have been much amplified thereby."
From here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm
So we are mining energy instead of metals now, anybody know a good book about energy?
Beyond that I first want to see a space efficient fusion reactor that works. What ever happened to Bussards wiffle ball reactor the US Navy swallowed?
I personally like the following graph:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201306.gif
I just don't see all that much flatness there, especially if you keep in mind that the system delay is ~40 years and that the trend hasn't really been broken by a temperature decline over a 40 year period. Also if you allow for some oscillation due to El Nino and other effects you would expect some ups and downs.
Also I don't really expect anyone to go down the depressive realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism) path to just have a better understanding of reality. Industrial society depends to 80% on fossil fuels and anyone suggesting that we stop it all in a relatively short time frame to prevent global warming and assorted feedback loops is completely nuts (which would probably be necessary). This is especially silly since our ancestors lived in far more difficult conditions without industrial society and took all the hardship of famine, war, disease, and death with ease. We will also deal with the results of global warming when we suffer from starvation, disease, and the occasional hot spell by dying with a smile on our faces knowing that we've had it all (not all of us, and poor people suffer first, but hey).
I admit I shouldn't have called the GP a Climate Zombie, but I really hate it when people paint our trajectory in rosy pictures or try to bullshit themselves (and me).
Then again the Forbes articles I had a look at had much lower quality:
"These cherry-picked items are then assembled, condensed and highlighted in the Summaries for Policymakers which are calibrated to get prime-time and front page attention."
I'm always amused when politicians/journalists call guys like Manning or climate scientists attention seekers - "uh, oh another fish in our pond" I can hear them squeal. So that went into the bin much like the other article it linked to that was only slightly more sensible.
There you go Mr. Climate Zombie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc
Adding another dimension to the 2d-table:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcmL02peSY
In other words, people choose the more immediate reward, i.e. have a party now, get screwed later.
There is also an appropriate piece of music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_BoAXopS54
My last job was kinda odd this way, they were so frightened of me spending some extra time on my actual project to ensure it works in cases of bad input and to simplify some code that they laid me off. Of course, I was a bit cavalier about ensuring management backing.
I would call this a sign of the times, I currently work for some guy for free because he has an interesting project and yet I still don't want to fool around with stuff that needs doing but isn't highest priority. This is a startup and needs some help so I better show some manners.
But in general I squarely blame net energy decline for it. While it may look to some as if financial mismanagement caused this short term thinking craze that has gripped CEOs and associated ilk, I think it is actually the awareness that we really do have no future for projects mankind doesn't need anyway. If our world is turning into an energy starved wasteland much like the onion suggests:
http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/66081-the-onion
then there is really no need for engineers who have a passion for their job and improving their knowledge of highly complex systems that depend on a working industrial society for its continued existence. Ultimately you will be overspecialized in a field that due to its multiple hard dependencies has an increased probability of failure in an environment that is characterized by shortages and sub standard performance because somebody tried to follow the growth paradigm
by eating its own flesh, i.e. abused the trust still existing in society to sell a shoddy, substandard product while the usual drivers for growth like population growth and energy input have become unavailable.
I heard your employer gives them away for free.
They didn't spread British weather over Germany. Even though the additional 300mm of rain would have be great.
I always knew old people were right in their claim that everything was better way back then.
What ever happened to hunger is a disease, treat it like one? That was too hard I guess:
http://www.goofball.com/photos/thing_Paris_France_vs_Paris_Kentucky
>Rather than focusing on supposed "racism" about Oprah in a high-end fashion boutique they focus on the real issues, like the NSA spying scandal, Obama's drone wars, etc.
Personally I like terradaily.com because it only marginally covers any of the topics you mentioned.
Keiser must be dueling with the onion for shrillness. On second thought I like how onion news anchors always keep their cool, one of the women actually looked like she had been botoxed to prevent any accidental smiles.
Body hacking gone wild:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Serpent
It all makes sense now.
I suppose you need extra energy for centrifuges then. But yes I forgot.
Windows 3.?? made me switch to Linux. At some point Windows' reliance on the x86 real mode and other hacks had me look at the squandered possibilities of the M$ empire and also at possible ways out. While one of my buddies switched to OS/2 I switched to Linux.
Since then I had only in the rarest case any chance to actually program for Linux while on the job. Fortunately I mainly do embedded programming nowadays and have to work with VxWorks, VDK, or no operating system at all, which is great.
Actually the methane feedback is only one of the many positive feedback loops that are being discovered, there are also negative feedback loops however.
One I have heard of is cloud formation that depends on increased availability of water vapour and the depletion of whatever carbon stock that has been
accumulated. The cloud formation thing has been said to not be terribly effective and the depletion only happens after the methane/peat/other organic matter has been consumed.
Collecting methane from arctic shelves and permafrost regions probably requires covering those vast areas, the question is, does using the methane pay for covering the area where it bubbles up. To answer your question more directly, methane is ~100x worse than CO2 during creation and this drops to 20x averaged over a 100year lifespan from what I've heard. The arctic methane emergency group has some ideas about it, but thanks to the other global feedback loops the problem becomes far more complex than just burning of the methane.
What is the energy return on investment for space colonies?
Lets list a few points:
+ 24h sunlight, possibly in Mercury orbit can provide energy
- no hydrothermal processes for minerals enrichment (this is a big one if you like copper)
+ vacuum is non corrosive, and not mechanically stressing
- harsh radiation environment
- no known ecosystem exists we can fit into
- vacuum poses heat transfer challenges
+ vacuum provides great insulation for heat and electricity
- no oxygen to burn fossil fuels with (i.e. those carbonaceous condrites), especially since you have to create it first
I hope somebody can sort this out. What space colonization needs is a whole new approach to living.
We cannot even manage that on earth, despite easier to solve problems. To get back to EROI, I wonder whether the lower
ore concentration can be offset by more sunlight. Granted there are concentrated deposits of Aluminium and Titanium oxide
on the moon, but how about NPK.
Watching a train wreck while you are on the train is one hell of a show, eh?
If a combination out of the methane feedback
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe
and the lag of the temperature increase that is caused by the greenhouse effect mentioned here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html
happens, then we may have already triggered a number of positive feed backs that will be impossible to stop.
All those human actors that make the process so interesting are already poised to take action too, unfortunately I can't find any direct link to Snowden's info about military disaster preparations and action against green resistance movements, but hey there is talk about this.