This is far too optimistic.
Possibly... in my mind I always equate a generation to 25 years but yes you're probably right.
I am convinced however it remains the most likely source of sustainable, environmentally sound fuel source. And it takes up minimal space.
Land use will become such a premium that vast fields of solar panels just wont be as viable as people think.
As more of the developing world switches onto electricity, power consumption will go through the roof.
Land use will become such a premium that vast fields of solar panels just wont be as viable as people think.
You really have no idea how big the land area of the Earth really is, do you?
The population density of the Earth -- the total population divided by the total land area -- is about 35 people per square mile (roughly 13.7 people per square kilometer).
The state of Kansas has a population density of 40 people per square mile. Have you ever driven through Kansas? Think of all the empty space that Kansas has to put solar cells.
But let's double the population of the world. Now we're up to 70 people per square mile -- less than that of Missouri. Triple the population of the world, to 105 people per square mile. Now drive through Texas, which also has a population density of 105 people per square mile, and imagine where one could put an array of solar cells. Now remember that I did calculations upthread that suggest that the entire world's power needs could be met with a single solar farm smaller than 1% of Texas....
People grossly underestimate the exponential problems caused by human population growth.
Other people grossly overestimate the likelihood that any system follows an exponential growth pattern over the long term. World population is almost certainly not one of them.
One of the things we've found is that when populations are granted the opportunity to control their fertility, they do. (One of the best predictors of population growth, for example, is education levels of women. Educated women have way fewer children, to the point where most developed countries are either losing population overall, or are only increasing in population due to immigration.)
Most actual demographers predict that the world population will stabilize at about 9 b-for-billion people sometime in the next hundred years, That's higher than the current population, but not by much.
|
That's very true Orfamy. Every population graph studied shows the gradual,slowing of its growth rate until a natural,set of consequences begins to level out population numbers.
We've been able to inflate our population beyond limits of normal animal systems, but that only works for so,long then resource limitations kick n again.
The trick,will be how far the population crashes after its peak before we see it stabilise. Given the level of destructive weaponry email able for our wars nowadays, there's a solid chance the population may crash all the way to the extinction line.
That's very true Orfamy. Every population graph studied shows the gradual,slowing of its growth rate until a natural,set of consequences begins to level out population numbers.
Except in the case of our species, it doesn't require a natural set of consequences, because we can unnaturally control our growth rate. Basically, every person that isn't born (due to the Pill or similar technology) is a person that doesn't need to be "naturally" culled out.
The trick,will be how far the population crashes after its peak before we see it stabilise.
The demographers predict a drop of, IIRC, about a half-billion people from peak to long-term stability. With no need (or expectation) of catastrophe, largely because people would rather not have children than have children they don't expect to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter.
That's very true Orfamy. Every population graph studied shows the gradual,slowing of its growth rate until a natural,set of consequences begins to level out population numbers.
We've been able to inflate our population beyond limits of normal animal systems, but that only works for so,long then resource limitations kick n again.
The trick,will be how far the population crashes after its peak before we see it stabilise. Given the level of destructive weaponry email able for our wars nowadays, there's a solid chance the population may crash all the way to the extinction line.
But the rate of population growth isn't slowing down because of resource limitations. If it was, then most western countries would be having population booms and the third world would be slowly driving itself towards extinction. The reality is almost the exact opposite.
|
|
You guys are forgetting war as a natural consequence for resource limitations. You're also forgetting the concept of developing nations vs 3rd world.
Humans call it war, other species just fight for whatever resource crops up.
Resources for humans are no longer just food and space. Now it's fuel, money, power, religion, etc etc. our global population is in fact broken into sub populations of contending groups attempting to control the same limited resources.
Ther will be a war, or a disease, or some other mitigating factor that will see a crash. It's inevitable.
Yes, we've replaced natural limitations with completely artificial ones now.
You guys are forgetting war as a natural consequence for resource limitations. You're also forgetting the concept of developing nations vs 3rd world.
No, we're not. We're just pointing out that without resource competition, war becomes much less likely, and that birth control measures and scientific progress are among the best methods of preventing war ever discovered.
If you want a good example of this, look at Tokogawa-era Japan. Roughly 250 years of peace (under a military dictatorship) with a more or less stable population, because even with that level of technology, it was easier and more effective not to have children than to have children you couldn't feed.
War will only happen if we choose to allow it to happen.
And the military's record with nukes lately is less than sterling.
The Air Force once dropped two bombs in the South. As it turned out, one of them even somehow armed itself, and only by the slimmiest of margins, it did not detonate when it hit ground.
And lets not get into the recent scandal regarding requalification of nuclear launch officers, shall we?
There are reasons the Army and Air Force do not operate NPP's.
The worst nuclear accident on US soil was caused by US Army personnel. The SL-1 explosion in Idaho.
The USN OTOH has a sterling record of safety with NPP's. Admiral Rickover created a very effective but very difficult training program that resulted in decades of safe operation of NPP's in very difficult conditions without a single accident. But as I pointed out above the program cannot be significantly expanded without diminishing its standards which would diminish safety. So using USN personnel to man numerous new civilian power stations is out of the question.
You ain't kidding, i went through the civilian side of that, and it's about 1 year training minimum. There are days i alternately cursed his name, and praised him.
Land use will become such a premium that vast fields of solar panels just wont be as viable as people think.
You really have no idea how big the land area of the Earth really is, do you?
The population density of the Earth -- the total population divided by the total land area -- is about 35 people per square mile (roughly 13.7 people per square kilometer).
The state of Kansas has a population density of 40 people per square mile. Have you ever driven through Kansas? Think of all the empty space that Kansas has to put solar cells.
But let's double the population of the world. Now we're up to 70 people per square mile -- less than that of Missouri. Triple the population of the world, to 105 people per square mile. Now drive through Texas, which also has a population density of 105 people per square mile, and imagine where one could put an array of solar cells. Now remember that I did calculations upthread that suggest that the entire world's power needs could be met with a single solar farm smaller than 1% of Texas....
For full disclosure, I am biased.
As I said, we already have a plan where we could provide the energy for the entirety of the US. That energy would be available during day or NIGHT, but the electricity would be gained during the day.
The ONLY areas that would have problems are those in the US above the Artic Circle.
Most energy would be self sufficient, in that it could be provided via rooftop solar energy. No need for solar farms for any place except the HUGE skyscrapers in the downtown portions of cities. Otherwise, most places have enough roof space to allow for enough solar panels (our type at least) to provide all the energy they need. There are storage solutions these days so even when it's dark...you can still use energy.
Furthermore, with the advances in solar cells (at least ours), it can be cloudy and you still obtain power.
This isn't science fiction, give us the money to do it, and we could do it NOW.
We could probably do it for a large portion of the world as well, but there could be a few places that may present some problems in regards to how we install and operate the solar energy.
However, for the US, it would be easily done with enough money. At least for the business I'm invested in.
In regards to the discussion on population...you'd have to talk to my spouse on that one. My spouse is the one who's involved with Conservation Biology and figuring out how habitats and other things are impacted by differences in climate (changing climate and other things) and environment.
They probably could figure something in regards to people, but it's not something I think they're in the mood to discuss with me right now, even if I asked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really have no idea how big the land area of the Earth really is, do you?
A tad naive and simplistic.... far greater minds than yours have identified the enormous challenges and problems that will (and are) occurring due to human population growth.
Thae basic problem of "Where we will fit everyone?" is but the merest tip of the iceberg.....
The inter-related logistical issues are huge.... entire disertations are written on this.
If human beings died off when we should do at about 35-40, the problems would be bad but we are currently living till about double that.
Just picking one of the most simple problems.... water. Even now we are draining the planet dry.... add in the water demands of about another 3-4 billion people (and the associated logistics) and you begin to see a disaster on the horizon.
And Im only talking about problems in the next 50 years... let alone 100, 200, 500.....
As Agent Smith commented..... when you think about it, human beings are a virus.
far greater minds than yours have identified the enormous challenges and problems that will (and are) occurring due to human population growth.
Yes, they have. And energy supply isn't one of them. And neither is land availability.
Arable land may be a problem, depending upon who you read. Given that famine is largely a solved problem today (the famines you see now are almost exclusively political issues where a kleptocratic government interferes with food distribution), and given that human population is only expected to rise less than 30% before it peaks and stabillizes, getting 30% more food out of the existing fields will not be problematic, but it may require some changes to basic diet. (Basically, the industrialized world eats way too much meat, too much even for health, but also too much for efficient food production, since meat is a lousy way to turn acreage into calories, or even into protein.)
Water is likely to be a greater problem, but again, this can be solved by energy (large-scale desalination). And, of course, in the short run, overfishing will be an issue until it stops being an issue because we run out of fish and people make the necessary changes to their basic diet.
But land per se is not a problem. The world is full of unproductive but highly sunny land where you can put solar farms, and, as I pointed out upthread, Tunisia alone could supply the world with energy (and then Algeria could provide enough energy to run as many desalination plants as you wanted). So could Australia or New Mexico, if you want your power a little closer to home, or China or Russia. Heck, so could Spain.
As Agent Smith commented..... when you think about it, human beings are a virus.
You are aware that The Matrix is not a documentary, right? I begin to see where you get all the fiction you post on various threads.
Well, if you SERIOUSLY claim that it's possible to put a solar cell roof over the ENTIRETY of Tunisia, your "possible" is approaching the "possible" of "it's possible to make all the matter in the solar system into a ringworld!" It is merely a matter of scale, and arguments like that aren't meant to take seriously, even if it IS actually theoretically "possible".
Please, some more realistic plans for saving the world, hmmm?
Well, if you SERIOUSLY claim that it's possible to put a solar cell roof over the ENTIRETY of Tunisia,
No one said anything about the entirety of Tunisia. The space requirements are actually fairly modest, but you seem to have a thing against being dependent upon foreign countries for energy instead of domestic production like bringing it in from Russia.
|
|
@thejeff, that's the reason solar farms are becoming a thing. Not every place is capable of having their own effective power source. It's also the reason why the Australian government wants us all to have solar where possible but have it linked into the grid.
At the moment, I have no choice but to link my solar panels into the grid system. The power I make goes to the electricity company which they pay me for. Then they charge me for whatever they supply to me to make up the deficit. For me, my bills halved. That's with my system being not too big, and not ideally located (should be pointing North in Australia ideally, the account for the Earths tilt affecting Suns trajectory).
My mother in law has a system that's bigger and better located. The power company actually pays them about $90 a month with the power they make. So their system makes more than enough to cover their needs and $90 worth of other people's needs.
Of course, after the government privatised all the power stations, the new companies immediately cut the payment rate to solar operators to 1/3 what was being paid previously. Mum in law and myself are lucky to be locked into our current deal til 2020. All the new folks aren't doing so well.
That's the problem in a nut shell. All of this amazing renewable energy still has to make money for someone. No one, governments included, really want people making their power for "free". Spending money drives economies as it forces folks to keep working and helps drive big business. Imagine what would happen if all of us suddenly had less to pay for in terms of power bills.
|
I was thinking weight problems. Considering flat roofs are angled wrong that makes it even worse as the brackets needed are even weightier than the usual ones for mounting to sloped roofs.
Solar shingles weigh no more than normal roofing materials, and even angled mounting racks for high efficiency panels are fine for the vast majority of roofs.
Basically, every roof in the world could be covered in solar materials... it's more a question of how much electricity the available options for each roof would generate and whether that is cost effective.
I've seen a lot of large building construction the last couple of years and exactly none of them have either solar or green roofs. If it was such a slam dunk option to go solar then the major builders seem to have missed that memo.
Is it possible that your surroundings aren't indicative of the world as a whole?
Again, it depends on the circumstances. Solar IS a "slam dunk" in the southwest US, and thus more often than not is being included in new construction. Alaska? Not so much. Florida should be a great place for solar, but the state government is actively regulating against it at the behest of power utilities. Et cetera.
Different places get different amounts of sunlight, have different regulations on solar power, and have different baseline electricity prices. All of these factor in to how good a choice solar power is for the area. However, solar prices have been falling sharply every year and regulations holding back solar power have been falling as the technology spreads and more people are exposed to its benefits. At the current rate of change it will have reached 'slam dunk' status nearly everywhere within just a few more years.
War will only happen if we choose to allow it to happen.Quark thinks about our "line in the sand" in Syria. And how we officially saw ISIS as "Al Qaeda's JV squad".
Yeah, no one's forcing us to go to war. We are choosing those wars.
Then he thinks about our NATO pledge and considers the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
And that one as well. Resource starvation isn't forcing Russia into the Crimea; they chose war.
I stand by what I wrote.
And my point was that, given a choice we invariably say I will have war! <garrr-face>.
That's your choice, then. But don't claim that you were forced into it by not having enough food/water/energy/Lebensraum. That argument didn't work in 1939 and won't work in 2139, even with world population at 9 billion. If you need more energy, war won't give it to you -- but more solar panels will.
|
|
Solar shingles weigh no more than normal roofing materials, and even angled mounting racks for high efficiency panels are fine for the vast majority of roofs.1) What happens when it rains or snows on a flat roof also loaded with solar panels and support frames?
Nothing. We've been able to calculate load bearing capacities for a long time now. Any solar installation would take that into account. Solar power generation now comes in a vast array of form factors... large panels, individual roofing shingles, siding, windows, pavement, and even solar cloth. These allow solar solutions to meet nearly any architectural or weather concern.
2) Roofing material is weather proof and solar panels are not roofing material.
Solar shingles ARE roofing material... and rack mounted panels would generally be installed over roofing material. There certainly isn't ANY problem weather proofing solar roofs. It also has nothing to do with your (false) claim that solar can't be installed on flat roofs.
3) never could count Insurance and maintenance costs also go up with solar panels. How much more is that in hurricane country? Or golf ball sized hail country?
Maintenance, not so much. Insurance, sure... a more valuable house costs more to insure. Hurricanes and large hail can indeed destroy solar panels... and/or entire buildings. Again, not making your 'no solar on flat roofs' claim any less false.
You seem to be flailing about for any argument to prop up a belief that solar power cannot possibly work. Why? Face reality... solar power is already working. It is the largest source of new power generation and usage is increasing every year. That's reality. 'Hail and flat roofs will stop solar' is just some weird kind of denial.
Solar panels work best when angled towards the Sun.
That said, there is absolutely no reason they can't be placed on most flat roofs and still generate significant amounts of power.
They can be mounted at an angle even on flat roofs, much like they are in solar farms in deserts or other areas.
That said, if I wanted solar, I'd have to cut down a lot of trees that give me nice summer shade. Then I'd actually need to get AC.
I was thinking weight problems. Considering flat roofs are angled wrong that makes it even worse as the brackets needed are even weightier than the usual ones for mounting to sloped roofs.
Related side note:
I've seen a lot of large building construction the last couple of years and exactly none of them have either solar or green roofs. If it was such a slam dunk option to go solar then the major builders seem to have missed that memo.
I'm not a structural engineer but I work for structural engineers and get a look at a wide cross-section of stuff we put out; here's my anecdote on this topic.
We do a fair amount of evaluating existing roofs for added solar panels (at sites all over the US). From a nonscientific survey of "stuff that has crossed Coriat's desk," which is probably a couple dozen projects in 2016, mostly the capacity checks out OK to add solar as-is. Occasionally the load of the panels requires some minor strengthening. I can't say whether or not it ever happens, but I don't recall seeing an instance where the required strengthening would have been so significant as to be prohibitive.
When there is a problem, it seems to be wind uplift more often than weight. Spare weight capacity seems to be pretty common - the large majority of large-building roofs, as far as I can tell, are intentionally designed with some excess capacity. That doesn't mean they were designed particularly for solar, just that the original owners/architects/engineers were aware that over the life of the structure they might want to put something else up there than they had on Day 1, be it a heavier roof, different rooftop mechanical equipment, solar, etc., and designed the load-bearing elements accordingly.
When there is a problem, it seems to be wind uplift more often than weight. Spare weight capacity seems to be pretty common - the large majority of large-building roofs, as far as I can tell, are intentionally designed with some excess capacity. That doesn't mean they were designed particularly for solar, just that the original owners/architects/engineers were aware that over the life of the structure they might want to put something else up there than they had on Day 1, be it a heavier roof, different rooftop mechanical equipment, solar, etc., and designed the load-bearing elements accordingly.
That's just plain common sense. Design it to be stronger than you think it needs to be, and both you and the customer will be pleasantly surprised. Design it to be exactly as strong as you think it needs to be, and the surprise will be ... less pleasant. (I'm a big fan of overengineering -- and I'm usually the one on my design team that is pushing "do we really need to pay for this capacity?" I understand that you might want to park a tank on top of your house.... but I'm not so sure you're going to need to park three. At the same time. While firing.)
|
|
If it was a simple and cost effective as you say there would be more solar than there already is.
We had already established that solar IS more abundant in areas where it is more cost effective. Remember... your claim of no solar roofs wherever you are vs the reality of solar being nearly universal on new roofs in low cost areas?
Spec construction, which most constructions is, is done as cheaply as possible by the contractor. To do otherwise cut's into profit and no contractor wants to do that.
A: Most building codes require significant over-engineering... so even 'as cheaply as possible' is better than the minimum viable product.
B: Options such as solar shingles and solar cloth add little or no weight to the roof.When solar gets as cheap and easy as you think it already is...
I have already explained, several times, how solar costs vary significantly by region. Solar is exactly as cheap and easy as I think it is.
well, that will be when it gets taxed back up to coal-equivalent costs. You know, that's what governments do.
Funny... I don't see the massive coal taxes. Rather the opposite in fact. It's almost like governments tend to massively subsidize production of vital resources.
War is not my choice but it is the default choice of humanity for as long as we have recorded history.
What nonsense.
Tell me, what percentage of your life have you spent engaged in warfare? And what percentage not? I'll be very surprised if the 'not' isn't the larger value... as it is and always has been for most of the human race.
There is a lot of war, but it is not remotely the 'default choice' and it has been in ongoing decline by any plausible metric (e.g. percentage of deaths, percentage of population employed, percentage of spending, et cetera).
|
|
CB,
I was born in the final two,years of Vietnam war.
The Cold War and threat of nuclear annihilation was a real thing as I grew up in the 80s.
Late 80s and early 90s we had issues all through Europe and the the first gulf war. I was friends with people in the military at those times.
Mogadishu and conflicts in the Indonesian islands represented the late 90s for me and those I knew in the military. My cousin was married to a cook attached as support to the SAS units operating at the time. Three of her friends lost their husbands in a Blackhawk accident training for operations looming in the Middle East.
September 11 saw terror draw my country and many others into a conflict still going on.
Just as it looks like that one was subsiding Syria erupts and as hthings stand it looks like Russia and America may clash in a real war this time, rather than a Cold War.
So,to,answer your question, my entire life has been affected by war.
My father served in the Airforce throughout Vietnam and much of the Cold War stuff.
His father and my wife's grandfather and grand uncles fought in World War Two. Their older relatives fought in World War One and I can even trace back to one of my fathers ancestors being involved in the Boer War.
War is constant in human society.
|
|
So,to,answer your question, my entire life has been affected by war.
Not a question I asked.
War is constant in human society.
True, but completely different than it being the "default choice of humanity".
To demonstrate the difference let's suppose that the average human spent 1% of their lifetime actually engaged in warfare. In such case it would clearly not be the 'default choice' of the race... yet on a planet of 7 billion people it would still be a constant... and the US, as the 'World's policeman' would be involved in many of those conflicts, and members of US military families 'affected by' them far beyond the actual participation of individuals.
War exists and has wide ranging effects. However, the claim that humans choose war whenever possible ("...given a choice we invariably say I will have war!") is simply ridiculous. Not only is war not a 100% certainty... it is the mathematically less likely choice... and markedly declining over time;
|
|
Yeah checked those stats. I think the statement about war being the default for humans is wrong. War is certainly a major go to option for societies,and cultures though.
Also, many of the stats are from before 2014. I read a very interesting article on how a number of stabilising factors are in fact driving war into a declining state. It was pretty cool.
Except in the last two years all but one of those mitigating factors,have collapsed.
I'll see if I can link it here, posting from iPad so might be difficult.
I guess the point in terms of power is, we are on the brink of removing fossil,fuels,as a major economic resource for numerous countries. There are countries that are developing where the technology for solar implementation is not practical yet. In fact, Amreica just put a huge stop on the Indian initiative for solar power in their country because it was going to cost American businesses profit.
In that situation, we are creating a volatile set of circumstances where some nations want to advance because it will free them financially to become more powerful. However other nations don't want that because they are currently financially powerful from the situation as it stands now. That, my friend, is how you start a war. And in this case it will be a big one.
In fact, the only reason I see Russia and America are not working closely together in Syria, unlike they have in previous conflicts in the region, is probably due to who gets the trade rights after the whole,thing settles.
America doesn't want the current Syrian government to remain in power because they don't have a favourable trade system with them. Russia is,supporting the current government, because they will,get good trade.
Syria happens to be a place where oil reserves can easily be transported through to,Europe.
Now, if you think American oil companies are going to casually sit back and let cheaper and widely available power sources come along and render their empires defunct, I believe that would be delusional,thinking.
I sadly feel,that at this stage a war will happen. And it may well decide where we go for power options. Indeed, if Putin keeps going, and Trump,gets in power, and North Korea still pushes its current nuclear agenda, the next war may well determine our continued existence.
Sounds scary I know, but we are in an amazingly unstable time right now.
Europe is collapsing, UN powers are all but negligible as a consequence, we have q number of powerful nations currently displaying strong resentment to the western world (Russia, North Korea, Iran, Indonesia and the Phillipines,) The only one not on that list is China at the moment, and they are probably just biding their time,to see how the state of affairs pans out. On top of that you guys (America) are in the midst of an election campaign where it's possible a man who has upset a huge part of the world could get iin. The very fact that he has come so far has made everyone else extremely nervous. Sadly, his opposition has also proven to be not so squeaky clean and has more than likely been directly involved in some international,decisions that put those countries I mentioned above in the "we hate America" camp.
I'm not holding on to much hope for settlement any time soon, and that seriously means alternate energies may be seriously pushed back.
Beyond that, people aren't supposed to die at 35-40.
You are mistaken.... even 2000 years ago (let alone 20000) human beings routinely died before the age of 45. It was commonplace. The fact that some didnt proves nothing.
Go back further.... say 20-50 k years and all evidence shows that homo sapiens in its natural state is not a long lived species.
Following the trend in other mammalians... on average, the bigger you are, the longer you live.
We aint that big!
If it was a simple and cost effective as you say there would be more solar than there already is.
The cost/kW is always calc'd with the cheapest-to-make and easiest-to-install options assumed.
Actually installing them is obviously not so cheap or easy.
My point with flat roofs that no one seems to understand is 99% of them were built without consideration that solar panels might also be installed on top of them. Spec construction, which most constructions is, is done as cheaply as possible by the contractor. To do otherwise cut's into profit and no contractor wants to do that.
When solar gets as cheap and easy as you think it already is... well, that will be when it gets taxed back up to coal-equivalent costs. You know, that's what governments do.
Now to Orfamay Quest
War is not my choice but it is the default choice of humanity for as long as we have recorded history. To think it will be otherwise is magical thinking - a strangely inapt position to take here on the Paizo forums. :D
I'm in upstate NY and it can be difficult to install solar panels because the companies doing it are booked out. If you go into any development with homes over 200K, about 1/3rd of the houses will have solar, with the exception of some of the older communities where old trees provide too much shade to allow it to be economic. Hell, cheap areas where houses are only 80-120K are seeing solar installers routinely. All the new complexes that are done by lowest bidder are more likely to have solar panels because they are new construction without trees to block the efficiency, and they are designed for middle class suburbia homes, which is where solar is skyrocketing.
The biggest barrier to home solar right now is political. Areas where you hook up to the grid and get paid for the excess power you produce, solar is booming, even if they don't have installation rebates. But in places like Texas, where they don't have to pay you for any energy you produce, home systems do not pay for themselves, so no one is installing them. The sad thing is that areas where solar works better are generally the ones more hostile to it politically, but even in areas like the northeast, where there are environmental issues half the year (October leaves through April snow), solar is more than efficient enough to be worthwhile if you get proper compensation.
A similar prob has been occuring in the UK with immigration. So you can use this as a sort of microscale equivalent...
Many on the left have been asking to open the flood gates and saying that we have room for another 500,000+.... etc, blithely ignoring basic logic (unsurprising from utopian idealists)
1) Yes there is physical room for an increase in numbers. New villages can be built..... but at what cost and at what disadvantage to the present population?
2) But how about the infrastructure?..... roads, medical facilities, access to shops, where will the children be educated, cost of building new schools, strain on public services, how will they gain access to water and energy... etc. It all costs huge amounts of money.
3) Where will they work? What jobs are available? It is no surprise that they almost always gravitate towards the large cities like London... etc in search of work. This puts an enormous strain on every aspect of life within large cities when there increases in numbers like this.
These are just small snippets of the problems that human population growth brings....
Yes there is available land to fit more people in.... but this in itself causes huge problems...
-People will need jobs... they end up back in large cities not living out in the middle of deserts
- Technology will (and is already) putting huge numbers of people out of work
- Clearing green land for housing worsens eco-problems like climate change
The list just goes on and on.....
BUT the biggest one for me is water.... the water demands (and not just for drinking) of 10 billion people, is simply collosal. When water starts disappearing from the land terrible things start to happen...
A similar prob has been occuring in the UK with immigration. So you can use this as a sort of microscale equivalent...
Many on the left have been asking to open the flood gates and saying that we have room for another 500,000+.... etc, blithely ignoring basic logic (unsurprising from utopian idealists)
1) Yes there is physical room for an increase in numbers. New villages can be built..... but at what cost and at what disadvantage to the present population?
2) But how about the infrastructure?..... roads, medical facilities, access to shops, where will the children be educated, cost of building new schools, strain on public services, how will they gain access to water and energy... etc. It all costs huge amounts of money.
3) Where will they work? What jobs are available? It is no surprise that they almost always gravitate towards the large cities like London... etc in search of work. This puts an enormous strain on every aspect of life within large cities when there increases in numbers like this.
These are just small snippets of the problems that human population growth brings....
Yes there is available land to fit more people in.... but this in itself causes huge problems...
-People will need jobs... they end up back in large cities not living out in the middle of deserts
- Technology will (and is already) putting huge numbers of people out of work
- Clearing green land for housing worsens eco-problems like climate change
The list just goes on and on.....
BUT the biggest one for me is water.... the water demands (and not just for drinking) of 10 billion people, is simply collosal. When water starts disappearing from the land terrible things start to happen...
The fact that we are increasing our efficiency to a point where we no longer need the entire population to work as many hours is not a sign that we have an overpopulation problem. It is a sign that we need to rethink wealth distribution and our work-life balance. I can't speak for London, but most of our cities are actually way under-populated, and places that welcome immigrant populations are seeing economic boons from the service industry boost.
You are mistaken.... even 2000 years ago (let alone 20000) human beings routinely died before the age of 45. It was commonplace. The fact that some didnt proves nothing.
Beyond that, people aren't supposed to die at 35-40.
You're confusing the mean with the distribution.
The average life expectancy at birth was about 35 years, yes. That's because if you average one baby that dies of diptheria at the age of six months with her brother who lives to 70, you get 35.
Similarly, the average human being has (about) one ovary and one testicle. But there are relatively few actual humans who fit that average.
Here's Wikipedia's take on the subject: "The combination of high infant mortality and deaths in young adulthood from accidents, epidemics, plagues, wars, and childbirth, particularly before modern medicine was widely available, significantly lowers LEB. But for those who survive early hazards, a life expectancy of 60 or 70 would not be uncommon. [...] In populations with high infant mortality rates, LEB is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, LEB can be subjected to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low LEB will necessarily have a small proportion of older people."
It's discussed in much more detail in this blog article. From the article:
There are two commonly used frameworks for life expectancy: At birth and some later age, often 12 years old. In many populations, death is so common among infants and very young children that life expectancy from birth is a poor representative of what is really being considered, so life expectancy from a later (non-zero) age is more meaningful.
Life span is how long you live. Life expectancy and life span really are, in an informal sense, the same thing (or at least are often treated that way), but life span is usually conceived of by the human on the street as how old the old people are, or how long an individual person (or thing) potentially lives, as opposed to an average. In fact, sometimes life span is thought of as a maximum (the human life span is something like 120 years, because that’s about how long the oldest person ever lived). If you think of life span in any of these ways, then it is very different from life expectancy. Say the life expectancy (from birth or some older age) is 40 years. If you went to a place like this you might find plenty of old people over 70 or so, because 40 is the average age of death, not the actual age of death.
For full disclosure, I am biased.
As I said, we already have a plan where we could provide the energy for the entirety of the US. That energy would be available during day or NIGHT, but the electricity would be gained during the day.
The ONLY areas that would have problems are those in the US above the Artic Circle.
Most energy would be self sufficient, in that it could be provided via rooftop solar energy. No need for solar farms for any place except the HUGE skyscrapers in the downtown portions of cities. Otherwise, most places have enough roof space to allow for enough solar panels (our type at least) to provide all the energy they need. There are storage solutions these days so even when it's dark...you can still use energy.
Furthermore, with the advances in solar cells (at least ours), it can be cloudy and you still obtain power.
This isn't science fiction, give us the money to do...
I've seen some high efficiency cells but there is no way you're sitting on an economical cell that is high output at mid to high latitudes during winter during less than sunny weather.
If you had such a thing the patent would be worth so much you wouldn't be begging for money on some gaming forum. I'm a big believer in renewable energy but come on.
IT is hard for someone to be wrong on everylast thing they posted, but you seem to have accomplished that.
Are you the US govt. No. Are you any sort of govt. NO. In fact, if you were, this isn't the forum you'd be in. I'm not selling you anything...and if you tried I'd tell you go through you professional channels. Anyone having a ridiculous notion that I'm trying to sell this to them here has an inflated egotistical opinion of thier own importance.
#1 - I am NOT selling anything on these forums, NOR am I begging for money here. I've posted my connections because I'm being upfront that I am absolutely NOT neutal on this topic.
#2 - Our engine is currently exclusive to us. In order to sale anything I'd have to give a rundown, something which I have NO permission to do in public, much less a forum like this.
#3 - You have NO idea about the solar energy market right now, nor renewable energy. I don't think you even know anything about solar cells in our modern market to be honest, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ludicrous claim as you did in regards to cells in high latitudes. Of course, you DID include the term economical...which is in the eyes of the beholder.
The number ONE reason we probably don't sell more is people do NOT see it as economical. People are shortsighted. If we had 100 million orders for households over the next year or so...we could reduce the cost incredibly. However, as it is, just for the materials for one house it costs around 72-75K. (added note, that's for OUR items, not competitors. We have pretty high quality items that last for a lifetime. Normal solar cells and batteries as opposed to our engine are actually FAR cheaper than that and you can actually some of them fully installed for less than 5k-10K depending on where you live and the current market there).
The thing with our stuff is that you could store and generate enough electricity for one or two weeks off of one day's worth of energy in an area that's good for solar right now (like lets say, the middle of the Arizona desert). This obviously decreases at higher climes, but you could still easily have enough energy.
It's how our engine works. What's more, if one isn't adverse to hybrid energy (aka, several forms of non-polluting energy) we can actually have something running year round even in artic circle environments.
I DON'T have the patent. We have exclusivity to the usage of the stuff right now.
If we had a TON of orders, we could reduce the costs dramatically. Most balk at the initial investment right now.
Get off your high horse in accusations and perhaps learn something about the modern Solar Market.
If you want economical maybe start discussing the solar paint we have. Instead of relying on solar panels, you could just apply it to the house and building and absorb energy from the entire exterior. Of course, you'd have to figure how to wire it up, but if one wants economical, that's goingt be the economical way to go currently, AND, you aren't just restricted to putting stuff on your roof.
Why hasn't this idea taken off either? Well, for starters, it wears. After two years there will be a noticeable decline in some places and on some structures.
In addition, for starters, its with the US...and though there are some eager adapters, there is a LOT of pushback. Plus, when people already have their homes wired for the normal grid...AND/OR there are laws that work against the solar market (for example, you have to connnect to the grid whether you want to or not, and you have to pay for that connection, and you are charged taxes even on energy that doesn't come from it, and a LOT of other laws to discourage other forms of energy production), it's a LOT more difficult of a market than most think.
Nevertheless, I've explained what we COULD do...I think the responses on this thread are enough of an example in and of itself WHY it isn't as big as some think it would be with the technology we currently possess.
Agreed GreyWolfLord. The biggest thing stopping alternate energy now is not technology, it's society and economics.
And the economics are mostly ones of scale, not actually resource limitations. No one is willing to invest in the startup costs to get large scale production facilities up and running for some of the less standard tech, and a decent amount of that has to do with how disruptive the industry is to itself right now. New technologies are coming out too fast that you can't guarantee any top of the line one will be around long enough to get a return on your investment.
For full disclosure, I am biased.
As I said, we already have a plan where we could provide the energy for the entirety of the US. That energy would be available during day or NIGHT, but the electricity would be gained during the day.
The ONLY areas that would have problems are those in the US above the Artic Circle.
Most energy would be self sufficient, in that it could be provided via rooftop solar energy. No need for solar farms for any place except the HUGE skyscrapers in the downtown portions of cities. Otherwise, most places have enough roof space to allow for enough solar panels (our type at least) to provide all the energy they need. There are storage solutions these days so even when it's dark...you can still use energy.
Furthermore, with the advances in solar cells (at least ours), it can be cloudy and you still obtain power.
This isn't science fiction, give us the money to do...
I've seen some high efficiency cells but there is no way you're sitting on an economical cell that is high output at mid to high latitudes during winter during less than sunny weather.
If you had such a thing the patent would be worth so much you wouldn't be begging for money on some gaming forum. I'm a big believer in renewable energy but come on.
IT is hard for someone to be wrong on everylast thing they posted, but you seem to have accomplished that.
Are you the US govt. No. Are you any sort of govt. NO. In fact, if you were, this isn't the forum you'd be in. I'm not selling you anything...and if you tried I'd tell you go through you professional channels. Anyone having a ridiculous notion that I'm trying to sell this to them here has an inflated egotistical opinion of thier own importance.
#1 - I am NOT selling anything on these forums, NOR am I begging for money here. I've posted my connections because I'm being upfront that I am absolutely NOT neutal on this topic.
#2 - Our engine is currently exclusive to us. In...
What company do you work for?