A Bigger Threat Even Than The Debt Crisis?

[mirage]

The capital requirement reduces due technological developments. I don't see a reason why any source would be beyond us, unless we can't get positive energy from nuclear fusion.

If the cost of capital is too high someone just goes and develops a cheaper more effective way. Look at computers, cars, everything.

You are looking at past successes only. The enormous benefits of nuclear fusion have been theoretically in evidence for some time. (and in fact the market has done nothing on this front). Why don't you look at that along with computers and cars?

The market does not "always" get you the result you would like. It only exploits the nearest available opportunities within the time-scale of equity investments and executive renumeration. The goal must be technically and economically feasible, regardless of the demand. The best way of assessing whether something is feasible is to actually look at it rather than simply trusting that the mystic market will deliver.

However, where I may have a few more doubts about the joys of future technology, I think the market will certainly do one thing very well: demand destruction. I just hope this occurs gradually to allow a smooth transition rather than catastrophically, accompanied by war and starvation.

[Guest theboltonfury]

Then what has been the fundamental reason for this? Pixies with axes?

Goodbye to West Africa's Rainforests

Total Forest Loss, 1990-2005

my point was your assertion that it must go because we need it.

It must stay because we need it

[bogbrush]

I don't know why you come to those conclusions;

Firstly, the issue with fusion is that we can't yet get a sensible excess of energy out over what's put in, the technology isn't around yet. However, that's one for the future. It's certainly the ultimate answer to "free" energy. Are you saying it's lying there to be picked up and nobodies bothering? Unlikely, but if so let me know and we could make a killing here.

Clearly pure research (looking at something) is important - who said anything about stopping that? - but increasingly that is sponsored by businesses to find solutions that are stopping them making money. By guess is that efficient fusion will be cracked by somebody receiving grants from a business.

I don't quite get the bit about it demanding destruction. It demands solutions and causes destruction of something when that's part of the solution. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that bit so put me straight if I am.

[mirage]

I don't know why you come to those conclusions;

Firstly, the issue with fusion is that we can't yet get a sensible excess of energy out over what's put in, the technology isn't around yet. However, that's one for the future. It's certainly the ultimate answer to "free" energy. Are you saying it's lying there to be picked up and nobodies bothering? Unlikely, but if so let me know and we could make a killing here.

I'm saying that technological barriers to known physical possibilities may not be overcome by the market in a reasonable time scale, regardless of market demand.

Whether mass replacement of fossil fuel (not to mention fossils' other uses) is technologically feasible in a time-scale that can avert disaster is up for debate. You give examples where market-driven innovation have been very successful so I give contrary examples where no real progress has occurred.

Now you may (as I do) feel that technological innovations necessary to replace fossil resources are within reach. I hope so anyway. But you can't justify that opinion by simply saying the market always provides. It is precisely whether or not it can that is in doubt. Clearly sometimes it can and sometimes it can't, depending on the the technological barriers.

Clearly pure research (looking at something) is important - who said anything about stopping that? - but increasingly that is sponsored by businesses to find solutions that are stopping them making money. By guess is that efficient fusion will be cracked by somebody receiving grants from a business.

Maybe so. Fusion (as in toroidal magnet fusion) is very far from pure research, it is hugely expensive applied research. I'm not sure why you think that a bunch of scientists receiving a grant from business are more likely to succeed than ones funded by any other source.

Business is good at the last stretch into commercial application, for obvious reasons. It didn't develop nuclear fission, but it has been pretty good at building the cheaper modern plants. Whether it can do the same for other energy is open to debate.

I don't quite get the bit about it demanding destruction. It demands solutions and causes destruction of something when that's part of the solution. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that bit so put me straight if I am.

Demand destruction. As in the destruction of market demand because of price hikes.

[huw]

my point was your assertion that it must go because we need it.

It must stay because we need it

What I said: "Sadly, consumer demand requires that the rainforest must go."

What you're responding to: "it must go because we need it."

Consumer demand <> What we need. But it heavily influences what we get in the short/medium term. Hopefully the tipping point will come before it's too late, though I am not that optimistic.

[Guest theboltonfury]

What I said: "Sadly, consumer demand requires that the rainforest must go."

What you're responding to: "it must go because we need it."

Consumer demand <> What we need. But it heavily influences what we get in the short/medium term. Hopefully the tipping point will come before it's too late, though I am not that optimistic.

I misquoted you - sorry

It's such a beautiful place and so important that we cannot put our needs before it. We simply can't

[huw]

I misquoted you - sorry

It's such a beautiful place and so important that we cannot put our needs before it. We simply can't

I think we're in agreement ... though perhaps I'm more pessimistic than you because I think that human greed and short-termism will be wreaking destruction for a good while yet.

[bogbrush]

I'm saying that technological barriers to known physical possibilities may not be overcome by the market in a reasonable time scale, regardless of market demand.

Whether mass replacement of fossil fuel (not to mention fossils' other uses) is technologically feasible in a time-scale that can avert disaster is up for debate. You give examples where market-driven innovation have been very successful so I give contrary examples where no real progress has occurred.

Now you may (as I do) feel that technological innovations necessary to replace fossil resources are within reach. I hope so anyway. But you can't justify that opinion by simply saying the market always provides. It is precisely whether or not it can that is in doubt. Clearly sometimes it can and sometimes it can't, depending on the the technological barriers.

If the technology exists then the market is by far the best device to applying it. It it doesn't it might be the solution, but it's not the only one. If the solution doesn't exists then that's your lot whatever way.

Maybe so. Fusion (as in toroidal magnet fusion) is very far from pure research, it is hugely expensive applied research. I'm not sure why you think that a bunch of scientists receiving a grant from business are more likely to succeed than ones funded by any other source.

I didn't tie the two, although I accept it's possible to think I did.

Business is good at the last stretch into commercial application, for obvious reasons. It didn't develop nuclear fission, but it has been pretty good at building the cheaper modern plants. Whether it can do the same for other energy is open to debate.

I think we're close enough on, say, tidal power. It just needs the numbers to add up. Your last quote suggests to me that we're not poles apart, I'm just optimistic because human ingenuity is boundless when the need is there, and needs are efficiently expressed through market forces, even if the supplier has to be smart enough to look ahead (as, to be fair, plenty are; don't judge them all by the dullards at GM).

Demand destruction. As in the destruction of market demand because of price hikes.

You can't destroy demand through price, you just choose not to meet it.

[mirage]

If the technology exists then the market is by far the best device to applying it. It it doesn't it might be the solution, but it's not the only one. If the solution doesn't exists then that's your lot whatever way.

I think I'm getting confused in distinctions you haven't explained. What you are saying depends on what you mean by "technology" (just the principle, or the matured application) and "solution" (ditto) and there are no strict definitions for these terms.

Currently there is no working solution that exists in the sense of something that we could just contract for. You have not really justified, but merely asserted your faith in the market coming up with one.

I think we're close enough on, say, tidal power. It just needs the numbers to add up. Your last quote suggests to me that we're not poles apart, I'm just optimistic because human ingenuity is boundless when the need is there,

But that is meaningless rhetoric, isn't it? Boundless relative to what? It was bounded by the difficulties of coming up with penicillin for many hundred years. I'd like to be an optimist, but preferably one with solid empirical evidence. Sure, tidal looks promising. That is just the start of what would have to work though and the problems of scale are just incredible. It took about a century to convert simply from burning one carbon source to another. From coal/steam to gasoline/internal combustion. I hope things happen quicker in the modern world, but they will still take a damn long while and all that while the wall of resource depletion amplified by increasing energy input for each unit energy gained is looming at disturbing speed.

and needs are efficiently expressed through market forces, even if the supplier has to be smart enough to look ahead (as, to be fair, plenty are; don't judge them all by the dullards at GM).

What if they have to look ahead much further than their investment horizons and at too great a risk? Is there no role for national energy policy to influence this market or provide more basic research?

You can't destroy demand through price, you just choose not to meet it.

Not what I have heard on the many many articles about demand destruction of crude. If oil is $400 dollars a barrel, lots of economic demand (which is desire + ability to pay as we all know on HPC, not just desire) necessarily disappears and people find ways to do without. This is conventionally referred to as demand destruction. If the whole of America buys efficient cars instead of Humvees then they buy less oil even when the price comes back down because they have shifted the demand curve.

Edited December 24, 2008 by mirage

[huw]

You can't destroy demand through price, you just choose not to meet it.

Economic demand only exists in a meaningful sense if it includes the wherewithal to transact. Otherwise you're talking about desire.

This goes back to the old canard that UK property prices were underpinned by strong demand ... the flaw in the argument was to conflate desire and economic demand.

[Te Mata]

Would you play russian roulette?

Wanna play?

Global warming may or may not happen, a bit like putting a bullet into a gun and spinning the barrel pulling the trigger may or may not kill you. Question is would you be stupid enough to pull the trigger?

This is the problem with global warming it may or may not be happening. Trouble is no one can prove definitely one way or another as we simply do not have the data.

So the question is are you stupid enough to play Russian Roulette with 6bn lives on the basis that global warning is possible ********?

Isn't this just another version of Pascal's wager?

Better get down to Church dude. Get on your knees and pray your heart out...

... just in case.

[huw]

Isn't this just another version of Pascal's wager?

Better get down to Church dude. Get on your knees and pray your heart out...

Pascal's wager was for one soul, this one could be for six billion (more if you think other things beside humans have souls )

[nixy]

Where's the epidemic we were warned about 20 years ago?

Erm..... it was averted for some reason???

but I can't think why.

[waitingscot]

Can there be anyone dumber than a global warming denier?

People who believe in creationism I suppose.

[ccc]

Can there be anyone dumber than a global warming denier?

People who believe in creationism I suppose.

Well - I studied numerous climate related classes at Edinburgh Uni. I must be dumb.

Then again.................maybe I just have a brain.........

Show me the electric car....

[Guest theboltonfury]

Well - I studied numerous climate related classes at Edinburgh Uni. I must be dumb.

Then again.................maybe I just have a brain.........

Show me the electric car....

Use your brain then to explain to me why the Greenland iceshelf is receding faster than ever before and why The Arctic ice is decreasing so fast causing catastrophic changes to ecosystems

Tell me why when planes were taken out of the sky after 9/11 the world mean temperature dropped significantly?

[ccc]

Use your brain then to explain to me why the Greenland iceshelf is receding faster than ever before and why The Arctic ice is decreasing so fast causing catastrophic changes to ecosystems

Tell me why when planes were taken out of the sky after 9/11 the world mean temperature dropped significantly?

Do you get it ? Clearly not.

No offence and all but you need to step back for a second...

Ask yourself if it is a BIG ******ING DEAL THAT THE GREENLAND ICESHELF IS RECEDING FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE........

I will give you a clue, it begins in "N" and ends in "o"...

[Guest theboltonfury]

Do you get it ? Clearly not.

No offence and all but you need to step back for a second...

Ask yourself if it is a BIG ******ING DEAL THAT THE GREENLAND ICESHELF IS RECEDING FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE........

I will give you a clue, it begins in "N" and ends in "o"...

No - mass flooding is fine isn't it

Sorry, and you learnt all this from a couple of University seminars did you? ****** me, better sit up and listen then

[ccc]

No - mass flooding is fine isn't it

Sorry, and you learnt all this from a couple of University seminars did you? ****** me, better sit up and listen then

Yes - mass flooding is fine. That is the whole point of what I am saying. Not rocket science.

[Guest theboltonfury]

Yes - mass flooding is fine. That is the whole point of what I am saying. Not rocket science.

well, I guess it depends where you live in that respect.

We're not seeing eye to eye here. So I'll say Merry Christmas regardless

[ccc]

well, I guess it depends where you live in that respect.

We're not seeing eye to eye here. So I'll say Merry Christmas regardless

And Merry Christmas to you to.

All I am saying is that mass flooding is fine. It always has been. It always will be. The only problem is when you get in it's way..............

[Guest theboltonfury]

And Merry Christmas to you to.

All I am saying is that mass flooding is fine. It always has been. It always will be. The only problem is when you get in it's way..............

Very philosophical that. Not sure Bangladeshis will agree though

[ccc]

Very philosophical that. Not sure Bangladeshis will agree though

But Nepalis' will though...

You get the point..

For every loser there is a winner, etc..

[huw]

well, I guess it depends where you live in that respect.

And on where your food is grown.

[ccc]

And on where your food is grown.

If you grow your own food, and you live in the highlands of a nation - climate change is pretty meaningless to you.