41 ms·

Huh. This guy is simply making the very basic point that politicians, economists and bankers selling us "growth" as a solution to unemployment, debt, etc are pl

by wazoox 16y ago

Huh. This guy is simply making the very basic point that politicians, economists and bankers selling us "growth" as a solution to unemployment, debt, etc are plainly lying. Growth (population, GDP, energy availability, etc) will stop at some point. An economy that relies entirely on growth to merely function is doomed to fail spectacularly at some point in time.

dagw 16y ago
I agree that population growth cannot go on forever (although I consider doubling the current number quite likely). However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Things like solar energy in all its variations is also a source we basically aren't using at all. Give us 50-100 years an we'll no doubt come up with some new source of energy we haven't even considered yet.
- wazoox 16y ago
  > However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Industrial nuclear fusion is decades away, probably a century. From the 18th century onwards, we went from tapping ever better energy sources (denser, lighter): animal power, coal, oil. There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future. At some point, we'll have to do with /less/.
  - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
    "At some point, we'll have to do with /less/." This part of the long business cycle always produces a lot of arguments for austerity. So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. "Nuclear fission is currently on decline." Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance and we appear to be laying the groundwork for the next stage of advances: gas- and metal-cooled reactors, superconductors, mechanical compression systems, reliable mode-locked lasers, dielectric wall and wake field particle accelerators, electronics that can do real-time gigahertz feedback, etc. When the next long expansion gets into full swing, I predict that the nuclear logjam will break loose. "There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future." There's a lot of solar power in space. A lot. And literal mountains of metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it.
    - wazoox 16y ago
      > So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. So far, there weren't 7 billions humans neither. > Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance Absolutely not. This is GE and AREVA PR, but doesn't reflect the truth. We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones. The numbers aren't even ramping up fast enough. As time goes by, there will be less and less active nuclear plants. Fusion research is blooming, but it didn't make much progress, particularly compared to the huge effort (see ITER). > There's a lot of solar power in space. A lot. And literal mountains of metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it. This is science-fiction. I'm pretty close to say this is complete BS. "Space ore" simply can't happen unless you find the way to harvest the power from some magic ponies yet to discover.
      - dagw 16y ago
        I totally agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power plants, but that is purely for political reasons. The research is still happening and once there is a change in the political climate we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Also if we look back at the past 1000 (or even just 100) years of human history, we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes.
        wazoox 16y ago
        > we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.
        infinite8s 16y ago
        Except about 200 years of science and math starting from the end of the Renaissance Period.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. That's a choice, one that we could change. There are no technical or economic obstacles to building nuclear plants for far less money and in far less time that are just as safe (or safer) than what we have now. (France is an existence proof for much of the potential savings.) There are, however, legal and political obstacles.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    > Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Define "we". Take a look at China's nuclear power program sometime; they've brought the cost of their CPR1000 plants down to where they're cheaper to build than coal plants of the same size, and they're well on their way to do the same for the more modern AP1000 reactor design. They've got a bunch of new nuclear plants under construction, with more on the way as they pick up momentum. We're talking about 10-15 large reactors coming on line every year, with the production rate increasing as they ramp up. Also, they've got their first commercial-scale pebble-bed reactors being built right now. If I remember correctly, they're also looking at incorporating thorium into the fuel mix. Also, they're working on 40% and 70% more powerful versions of the AP1000 that will not add much to the cost. Nuclear power in China is going to be seriously cheap. Also, they're working on fast breeder reactors, which use uranium much more efficiently. They're building two BN-800 reactors, working together with Russia, since Russia has been profitably operating fast breeder reactors in the BN series for decades. If you're only looking at the US and Europe, then sure, the Nuclear Renaissance is looking a little feeble. But the US and Europe are not the whole world.
fgf 16y ago
nuclear power could deliver far more energy per year than is used yearly now for thousands of years. Innovation makes energy more useful. When the potential for growth these two cause is exhausted there's scifi stuff; solar power from satellites around the sun; fusion; etc.
- seabee 16y ago
  Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO. Do you plan as if disk drives won't get more capacity? That ram and cpus won't get cheaper? It's only irresponsible if you promise growth that won't happen. It's irresponsible to ignore growth that will or can happen.
LiveTheDream 16y ago
Is it still lying if you don't know that you are wrong?

by wazoox 16y ago

dagw 16y ago

I agree that population growth cannot go on forever (although I consider doubling the current number quite likely). However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Things like solar energy in all its variations is also a source we basically aren't using at all. Give us 50-100 years an we'll no doubt come up with some new source of energy we haven't even considered yet.

wazoox 16y ago
> However I see no reason why energy availability can't keep growing for many many centuries to come. We aren't tapping the full potential of nuclear fission, to say nothing about fusion. Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Industrial nuclear fusion is decades away, probably a century. From the 18th century onwards, we went from tapping ever better energy sources (denser, lighter): animal power, coal, oil. There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future. At some point, we'll have to do with /less/.
- Daniel_Newby 16y ago
  "At some point, we'll have to do with /less/." This part of the long business cycle always produces a lot of arguments for austerity. So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. "Nuclear fission is currently on decline." Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance and we appear to be laying the groundwork for the next stage of advances: gas- and metal-cooled reactors, superconductors, mechanical compression systems, reliable mode-locked lasers, dielectric wall and wake field particle accelerators, electronics that can do real-time gigahertz feedback, etc. When the next long expansion gets into full swing, I predict that the nuclear logjam will break loose. "There aren't any better energy source than oil available now, or in the foreseeable future." There's a lot of solar power in space. A lot. And literal mountains of metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    > So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. So far, there weren't 7 billions humans neither. > Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is currently in a renaissance Absolutely not. This is GE and AREVA PR, but doesn't reflect the truth. We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones. The numbers aren't even ramping up fast enough. As time goes by, there will be less and less active nuclear plants. Fusion research is blooming, but it didn't make much progress, particularly compared to the huge effort (see ITER). > There's a lot of solar power in space. A lot. And literal mountains of metal, richer than the best terrestrial ores and pre-smelted too. At some point technology will tip the profit margin positive on exploiting it. This is science-fiction. I'm pretty close to say this is complete BS. "Space ore" simply can't happen unless you find the way to harvest the power from some magic ponies yet to discover.
    - dagw 16y ago
      I totally agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power plants, but that is purely for political reasons. The research is still happening and once there is a change in the political climate we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Also if we look back at the past 1000 (or even just 100) years of human history, we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes.
      - wazoox 16y ago
        > we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.
        infinite8s 16y ago
        Except about 200 years of science and math starting from the end of the Renaissance Period.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. That's a choice, one that we could change. There are no technical or economic obstacles to building nuclear plants for far less money and in far less time that are just as safe (or safer) than what we have now. (France is an existence proof for much of the potential savings.) There are, however, legal and political obstacles.
- pjscott 16y ago
  > Nuclear fission is currently on decline. We aren't even building enough power plants to maintain its output, nor are we likely to do so in the next 20 to 30 years. Define "we". Take a look at China's nuclear power program sometime; they've brought the cost of their CPR1000 plants down to where they're cheaper to build than coal plants of the same size, and they're well on their way to do the same for the more modern AP1000 reactor design. They've got a bunch of new nuclear plants under construction, with more on the way as they pick up momentum. We're talking about 10-15 large reactors coming on line every year, with the production rate increasing as they ramp up. Also, they've got their first commercial-scale pebble-bed reactors being built right now. If I remember correctly, they're also looking at incorporating thorium into the fuel mix. Also, they're working on 40% and 70% more powerful versions of the AP1000 that will not add much to the cost. Nuclear power in China is going to be seriously cheap. Also, they're working on fast breeder reactors, which use uranium much more efficiently. They're building two BN-800 reactors, working together with Russia, since Russia has been profitably operating fast breeder reactors in the BN series for decades. If you're only looking at the US and Europe, then sure, the Nuclear Renaissance is looking a little feeble. But the US and Europe are not the whole world.

fgf 16y ago

nuclear power could deliver far more energy per year than is used yearly now for thousands of years. Innovation makes energy more useful. When the potential for growth these two cause is exhausted there's scifi stuff; solar power from satellites around the sun; fusion; etc.

seabee 16y ago
Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Right, but it's still finite to some degree, and selling people on growth which we cannot guarantee is possible is just plain irresponsible IMO. Do you plan as if disk drives won't get more capacity? That ram and cpus won't get cheaper? It's only irresponsible if you promise growth that won't happen. It's irresponsible to ignore growth that will or can happen.

LiveTheDream 16y ago

Is it still lying if you don't know that you are wrong?