5 ms·

The article has some interesting history but it also misleads by omission. Europe's forests were denuded by hand-tool harvesting of wood well before power tools

The article has some interesting history but it also misleads by omission. Europe's forests were denuded by hand-tool harvesting of wood well before power tools were invented. The earliest use of coal in European iron making was motivated by charcoal supplies running short due to extensive deforestation. When the article says "two-thirds of the wood that is harvested in developing societies is harvested sustainably" it's also saying "one third of the wood that is harvested in developing societies is harvested unsustainably." Even the very low energy consumption per capita of biomass-reliant populations is not sustainable at modern population densities. Biomass is a very low efficiency method of converting sunlight to energy useful to humans. That's why mainstream scientific and environmental organizations are more interested in solar photovoltaic technology; PV can provide 50 times more useful energy per hectare than biomass. The "high tech" approach is not just fashion-driven technology for technology's sake. https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Biomass_and_Solar_Energy_Yields https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Biomas... https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/biomass-and-land-use/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/biomass-and-land-use/ https://ucanr.edu/sites/WoodyBiomass/files/78993.pdf https://ucanr.edu/sites/WoodyBiomass/files/78993.pdf

hinkley 6y ago
You have to factor in the embodied energy into the equation of power per hectare, including replacement and maintenance, and once you’ve done that, ask if the other services provided by agroforestry are ever worth more than the energy from the PV farm that can only be used during the day (or stored, in which case include the embodied and maintenance energy of the storage system, too). We need to stop looking for One Weird Fix. It’s not out there, and /or we keep breaking it by changing the conditions. You will be looking for hedges, and some of those hedges will have stacking functions.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  We need to stop looking for One Weird Fix. It’s not out there, and/or we keep breaking it by changing the conditions. I'd agree with that. Low Tech Magazine keeps promoting One Weird Fix of "use less complicated technology." In early issues it highlighted a few simple old technologies that were plausibly equal or superior to modern complicated technologies. But it rapidly exhausted plausible candidates. Recent Low Tech Magazine articles are good branching off points for exploring historical technologies but poor at conceiving solutions to the energy and environmental problems we face in the 21st century. They keep highlighting ideas that barely touch on today's largest energy demands or that require far too much land per person. I have a bunch of energy crisis books from the 1970s and they also frequently dreamt of a more rural existence than is now possible for Earth's billions of people. They kept invoking past lifestyles, ignoring how many fewer people there were in the past. The mismatch is even more severe in 2020 than it was in 1974.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    It's a complex problem. They're all complex problems when you have to solve them for 8 billion instead of 80,000 The more we automate the creation of food, water, clothing, and shelter, the fewer people we need to keep the rest of us from starving or freezing to death. What do the rest of us do for a living? Why do we keep going? A very careful dose of pastoralism can address part of that problem. Locally produced goods also tend to have a smaller carbon footprint, so there's something there as well. There are people who think we can fix all of our problems that way, and so far I've carefully avoided having to tell any of them they're wrong. Related to pastoralism is a bigger category: Stewardship. We could keep a lot of people in meaningful work by doing all of the deferred maintenance we're neglecting as we industrialize. Every time we find a new way to Go Fast and Break Things, we should be fixing what we break. Looking at sustainability and lifecycle costs. There's a PR problem with becoming a glorified gardener. It's a janitor with a better class of filth but a higher risk of injury. The hype you see is, fundamentally, trying to raise the 'station' of a whole raft of professions and hobbies. Romanticizing them.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      > The more we automate the creation of food, water, clothing, and shelter, the fewer people we need to keep the rest of us from starving or freezing to death. What do the rest of us do for a living? Why do we keep going? Why would the few remaining workers elect to work only to provide for others?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - hinkley 6y ago
        Right, so the first order problem is, “my self worth is in doubt.” And the second order problem is, “why am I busting my hump for these worthless do-nothings?” Even if you manage not to sink into an existential pit of despair, some rabble rouser may incite the means of production to rebel against you, introducing an external existential threat. So the dignity you’re looking for may save your life, twice. How do we do that, outside of intentional work slowdowns or Futurama suicide booths? Ever escalating consumption is the answer since WWII, but we are killing ourselves doing that. What else is there? You can start by doing all the things we never find the time to do. I don’t know how we solve that problem for the great grandkids, though. Probably involves space colonies. Mars would be a ridiculously massive jobs creation program.
Scoundreller 6y ago
> Biomass is a very low efficiency method of converting sunlight to energy useful to humans. Has great storage efficiency though.

hinkley 6y ago

You have to factor in the embodied energy into the equation of power per hectare, including replacement and maintenance, and once you’ve done that, ask if the other services provided by agroforestry are ever worth more than the energy from the PV farm that can only be used during the day (or stored, in which case include the embodied and maintenance energy of the storage system, too). We need to stop looking for One Weird Fix. It’s not out there, and /or we keep breaking it by changing the conditions. You will be looking for hedges, and some of those hedges will have stacking functions.

philipkglass 6y ago
We need to stop looking for One Weird Fix. It’s not out there, and/or we keep breaking it by changing the conditions. I'd agree with that. Low Tech Magazine keeps promoting One Weird Fix of "use less complicated technology." In early issues it highlighted a few simple old technologies that were plausibly equal or superior to modern complicated technologies. But it rapidly exhausted plausible candidates. Recent Low Tech Magazine articles are good branching off points for exploring historical technologies but poor at conceiving solutions to the energy and environmental problems we face in the 21st century. They keep highlighting ideas that barely touch on today's largest energy demands or that require far too much land per person. I have a bunch of energy crisis books from the 1970s and they also frequently dreamt of a more rural existence than is now possible for Earth's billions of people. They kept invoking past lifestyles, ignoring how many fewer people there were in the past. The mismatch is even more severe in 2020 than it was in 1974.
- hinkley 6y ago
  It's a complex problem. They're all complex problems when you have to solve them for 8 billion instead of 80,000 The more we automate the creation of food, water, clothing, and shelter, the fewer people we need to keep the rest of us from starving or freezing to death. What do the rest of us do for a living? Why do we keep going? A very careful dose of pastoralism can address part of that problem. Locally produced goods also tend to have a smaller carbon footprint, so there's something there as well. There are people who think we can fix all of our problems that way, and so far I've carefully avoided having to tell any of them they're wrong. Related to pastoralism is a bigger category: Stewardship. We could keep a lot of people in meaningful work by doing all of the deferred maintenance we're neglecting as we industrialize. Every time we find a new way to Go Fast and Break Things, we should be fixing what we break. Looking at sustainability and lifecycle costs. There's a PR problem with becoming a glorified gardener. It's a janitor with a better class of filth but a higher risk of injury. The hype you see is, fundamentally, trying to raise the 'station' of a whole raft of professions and hobbies. Romanticizing them.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    > The more we automate the creation of food, water, clothing, and shelter, the fewer people we need to keep the rest of us from starving or freezing to death. What do the rest of us do for a living? Why do we keep going? Why would the few remaining workers elect to work only to provide for others?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - hinkley 6y ago
      Right, so the first order problem is, “my self worth is in doubt.” And the second order problem is, “why am I busting my hump for these worthless do-nothings?” Even if you manage not to sink into an existential pit of despair, some rabble rouser may incite the means of production to rebel against you, introducing an external existential threat. So the dignity you’re looking for may save your life, twice. How do we do that, outside of intentional work slowdowns or Futurama suicide booths? Ever escalating consumption is the answer since WWII, but we are killing ourselves doing that. What else is there? You can start by doing all the things we never find the time to do. I don’t know how we solve that problem for the great grandkids, though. Probably involves space colonies. Mars would be a ridiculously massive jobs creation program.

Scoundreller 6y ago

> Biomass is a very low efficiency method of converting sunlight to energy useful to humans. Has great storage efficiency though.