Collapsology ... kezako?

[ABC2019]

I understand that you are totally mistaken.
He set the conditions for it to pass, then it's up to us to stick to the conditions.
There is no "realistic or unrealistic".
I think we would have lived in greater comfort than the hut deep in the woods, all the same!

I don't know if it's me or you who's completely picking it up, but I don't understand how you reason at all.

For example, if we do a study on interstellar travel and say that the only solution to do it is to control the storage and annihilation of antimatter, do you conclude that it is feasible?

of course if, knowing if it is "realistic" or "not realistic", it is ESSENTIAL !!! And Meadows has NEVER shown his solution to be realistic!

(I know a researcher who maintains that all food problems will be solved the day we genetically modify humans so that they digest cellulose like cows: ah well yeah, why don't we do it?)

what you don't realize is that it is quite possible that your criterion of "relatively comfortable" (for a modern westerner) is incompatible with "perennial", and therefore that you are asking for something impossible.

Again your preconceived opinions.
I tell you that comfort remains to be defined and mine may not be as demanding as yours.

it is not "preconceived" opinions, it is an observation of reality, of the way people live, and of what most claim, or complain about.

The fact that you have a house, a computer, and the internet already says a lot about your criteria of "relatively comfortable" (and besides I don't think mine are very different from yours).

Listen carefully to the video above. El Hierro had to become a military base or die.
Advice from experts in your genre!

I haven't looked at El Hierro for some time, but from what I had read it was far from a success (and again the supply of electricity is not the only problem, see always Iceland !!)

but I don't like spending an hour watching a video when I can read the gist of the conclusions in two minutes while reading a well-presented article, so if you link to an ARTICLE that presents the conclusions of the El Hierro experiment , please let me know.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

[ABC2019]

I haven't looked at El Hierro for some time, but from what I had read it was far from a success (and again the supply of electricity is not the only problem, see always Iceland !!)

but I don't like spending an hour watching a video when I can read the gist of the conclusions in two minutes while reading a well-presented article, so if you link to an ARTICLE that presents the conclusions of the El Hierro experiment , please let me know.

For El Hierro, the most recent reference I found is

https://blogs.futura-sciences.com/gioda ... stre-2021/

48% renewables and 52% fossils for the first half of 1

It's not better than in 2019

https://renewablesnow.com/news/spains-e ... re-683388/

54% renewables and 46% fossils

It seems that we have reached a ceiling. The project is about ten years old, and aimed at 100% renewable energy, with a wind PV system and storage by STEP (water lift at height).

Not famous anyway ....

[humus]

I don't know if it's me or you who's completely up to it, but I don't understand how you reason at all.

While I understand how you reason, I wouldn't say a bad word
I could write your dialogues
Okay, I'll answer your crappy example and stop.

For example, if we do a study on interstellar travel and say that the only solution to do it is to control the storage and annihilation of antimatter, do you conclude that it is feasible?

In theory it is doable.
In practice, given the current technique, it is far from it. great efforts to provide
this antimatter must be produced and at what energy cost? then store it for the long term.

Except that everything I say is more basic, theoretically feasible and the technique allows it to be done.
We know how to make H2, we know how to make vehicles with H2, there is nothing extraterrestrial about it.
We know how to make living soils, we know how to make natural sanctuaries, etc.
We know how to put more renewable in industrial products (for fun)
society-and-philosophy / collapsology-kezako-t15963-790.html # p474797

ABC2019: But why don't we do it then ???
humus: well because big sucks * (* yes, so big sucks, because I have already answered this broken record), it costs more to do it, or else it makes you lose comfort or prevents it from growing or making financial profit quietly in circles.
The debate is closed. good conclusion from guy

[humus]

"54% renewable"
Not famous anyway ....

Yes it is true, it is much worse than 100% fossils! or 86% nuclear.
I allow myself

[ABC2019]

I don't know if it's me or you who's completely up to it, but I don't understand how you reason at all.

While I understand how you reason, I wouldn't say a bad word
I could write your dialogues

that's what I actually thought. You play the one who does not understand but you understand the realities very well. You don't accept them, that's all.

Okay, I'll answer your crappy example and stop.

For example, if we do a study on interstellar travel and say that the only solution to do it is to control the storage and annihilation of antimatter, do you conclude that it is feasible?

In theory it is doable. E
n practice, given the current technique, it is far from it. great efforts to provide
this antimatter must be produced and at what energy cost? then store it for the long term.

but this is NOT feasible, no one has stored antimatter more than, let's go for a few hours in a storage ring, in tiny amounts and spending a lot of energy.

So your "in theory it's doable", I don't understand the meaning. For me, if nobody knows how to do it, I say that it is not doable. In the "concrete" sense where you can't blame anyone for not having done it (which you are doing for the Meadows scenario).

Except that everything I say is more basic, theoretically feasible and the technique allows it to be done.
We know how to make H2, we know how to make vehicles with H2, there is nothing extraterrestrial about it.

but MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. And much more expensive, that means that we would produce much less, because much less people could afford it. It's like yachts or private jets, no problem, we know how to do it.

But not for everyone.

Again, the goal is not to divide resource consumption by 4. That's easy, you just have to make people 4 times poorer, basically. The goal is to know if we can have the SAME wealth with 4 times less resources; Do you understand that it is VERY different? and that if it is not possible, it will be necessary to considerably reduce its consumption, and that nobody really wants that?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Bouzo: Once again, the goal is not to divide the consumption of resources by 4. That's easy, you just have to make people 4 times poorer, basically.

You're not stingy in stupid shortcuts ... already begins to imagine a world without waste (electricity, water, methane, etc, etc ...) and with systematic recycling, instead of delirious and lying. A clue:
An Indian consumes 0.9 barrels of oil per year, or 145 liters.
A Chinese consumes 2.1 barrels of oil per year, or 347 liters
A Brazilian consumes 4.2 barrels of oil per year, or 669 liters
A German consumes 10,6 barrels of oil per year, or 1 liters
An American consumes 25 barrels of oil per year, or 3 liters

[ABC2019]

Bouzo: Once again, the goal is not to divide the consumption of resources by 4. That's easy, you just have to make people 4 times poorer, basically.

You're not stingy in stupid shortcuts ... already begins to imagine a world without waste (electricity, water, methane, etc, etc ...) and with systematic recycling, instead of delirious and lying. A clue:
An Indian consumes 0.9 barrels of oil per year, or 145 liters.
A Chinese consumes 2.1 barrels of oil per year, or 347 liters
A Brazilian consumes 4.2 barrels of oil per year, or 669 liters
A German consumes 10,6 barrels of oil per year, or 1 liters
An American consumes 25 barrels of oil per year, or 3 liters

precisely, if the Americans can make efforts, it will be difficult to prevent poor countries from recovering it for them (and morally indefensible).

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Exactly not, especially if we develop renewable energies, we build passive, that we stop throwing energy out the window by manufacturing cars that consume three arms, by having hundreds of almost identical products marketed under different brands. , etc, etc .... You definitely do not understand anything at all, my poor man.

[ABC2019]

Precisely not, especially if we develop renewable energies, that we build passive, that we stop throwing energy out the window. You definitely don't understand anything, my poor man.

oil cannot be replaced by renewable energies without an enormous additional cost, which would hit the poor hard. They will not be able to buy a hydrogen car.

Talk to the yellow vests!