Electronuclear flexibility (excluding subject wind)

[Remundo]

I don't have too many illusions either. Men are not able to get along in general.

Rmq: to offer help, we don't care about consent beforehand. It is the other who consents a posteriori to accept help, or not. Besides, the "aid" I am talking about is more of a partnership than a "unilateral gift" relationship ...

Already said, but at the limit, when Europe is really bored in terms of energy (and migration ...), it can very well be satisfied with a northern Mediterranean Eurotrec. Perhaps we will take in the adventure the most enthusiastic and progressive countries like Morocco ... still at the limit, we would not even need all the countries of Africa. Morocco + Algeria + Tunisia well equipped can already swing in the order of X00 GW. Libya would be nice too, but it is very unstable. Algeria is hardly better. So at that time, there will be military security for little onions in these countries concerned ...

It will already be a small intra-European "convulsion" to achieve this. Then she will be able to patrol frigates and block all migration ... let most Africans "exploit" their continent in peace ... they will have a job by depriving themselves of our technologies ...

[Ahmed]

I don't question the fact that you are in good faith, but admit that all this is nothing but a desperate attempt to save a way of life which not only is not spatially transposable (and the technology will change nothing), but which is temporarily suspended. The energy question is essential, since it expresses and sums up our operating model by itself and, probably (?) Will be the trigger for economic collapse. However, this does not mean that it will be the root cause, since the financial aspects are decisive and forgotten by those who are satisfied (I do not blame them) for the escalation of new technologies ...

[Remundo]

basically, at the risk of being provocative, I declare that there is no energy problem. Since we have all the resources to produce much more energy (especially electricity) than we need, and this in a clean way.

There are basically problems humans at different scales because humans are essentially unreasonable, and "it costs him" in every sense of the word ...

[Ahmed]

The bulk of our problem comes from too abundant conventional energy (this is not the cause, but the means) and the energy available outside fossils is overabundant, which does not prejudge the real capacities to mobilize them. This simple desire shows the will to change the means without changing the goal.
But it is not humans who are directly involved. This is because there are many people who do not operate at all according to this scheme and among all the others (the most numerous) to participate in this unreason, many do so without conviction, but because they are trapped inside of a system that dominates us all, albeit only the result involuntary of our collective action.
What I wanted to say in the previous message is that energy can, at a particular moment, become inaccessible compared to an economic equilibrium, thus causing the collapse of the house of cards: economic collapse is a good thing in itself, to the extent that it would provide the opportunity to avoid making certain mistakes again, but more likely to turn into human disaster because it is rejected from our psyches and we are not therefore not able to cope with it and even less to anticipate it (which would be far better).
This is, moreover, vividly demonstrated by this fascination for the energy transition, undoubtedly necessary, but not sufficient, which is not thought of as a radical change, except anecdotally and justly so as to make it desirable, for sell it better.

[sen-no-sen]

basically, at the risk of being provocative, I declare that there is no energy problem. Since we have all the resources to produce much more energy (especially electricity) than we need, and this in a clean way.

There are basically problems humans at different scales because humans are essentially unreasonable, and "it costs him" in every sense of the word ...

At the risk of being provocative I would say that there is no "clean" energy, except perhaps that which one could draw from soap ...
Any dissipation of energy involves a modification of the environment to which we must readjust ourselves to the fruit of an even greater dissipation causing a loop of infernal feedback, this is what we call the effect of the red queen.
We can say that our time is undoubtedly under the reign of this cruel sovereign!


So, and contrary to popular belief, even if we could develop a way to produce clean and unlimited energy (a-neutron fusion could play the role!), The consequences would be completely disastrous.
As I had mentioned elsewhere, the main criticisms of the industrial production method are based on the concept of pollution: soot deposition, smog, oil spill and other toxic discharges are its avatars.
Most R&D research is based on this notion: getting rid of pollution *.
The problem is that pollution is a relatively simplistic concept which is essentially based on direct physical aspects (such as exhaust gases for example) while this has long since achieved what the economy has been doing recently: colonize abstract dimensions.

Even if we arrived at the Grail of energy production (unlimited + and without discharges) then the negative externalities would interfere in unexpected strata such as social relationships, our conception of the world or even our biology.
Remember that energy is what allows an entity to act on its environment, therefore, and this is historically demonstrated ***, access to a clean source would no longer put any limit on our actions and we would irretrievably lead to disappearance **.




* Pollution comes from Latin pollution: Defile.
The term also means to desecrate, which symbolically is interesting because the mastery of thermodynamics in the hands of laymen that we are defiles "the great order" of the biosphere.
** Not by war but by extremely brutal development as preached by transhumanists.
*** It is the access to an abundant source of energy thanks to the steam engines which made it possible to create the explosion of innovations and the very strong increase of the human population in less than 2 centuries.

[Ahmed]

Of course, the discourse which accompanies the promotion of renewable energies insists on the virtuous side * of the new directions which are more or less associated with it, but why would suddenly appear this virtue which CO2 did not condemn? Sobriety, in particular, which seems to be an unwavering companion of any self-respecting RE promotion, is only a rhetorical bait that would dissolve like the mist in the morning sun if ever this abundant energy, cheap and without (too de) CO2 materialized. There is moreover a principal contradiction between this voluntarist deployment and the sobriety invoked ...

Sen-no-sen, you talk about the consequences of limitless energy and "its negative externalities (which) would interfere in unexpected strata such as social relationships, our conception of the world or even our biology", but this is already the case and I think it would therefore be better to speak of an accentuation of these effects, in proportion to the increased use allowed by this energy profusion.

* Often with good faith, but this is an unimportant detail: once again, it is a question of determinisms in action and not of morality.

[lilian07]

Why the dissipation of more energy would be inevitable. This allowed the man to get out of his minimalist living conditions and it is certainly his destiny. more modern man will always consume more energy and therefore even if we access clean and abundant energy by converging on systems whose efficiency approaches 100% we will always dissipate more energy to become more superhuman, the economy in this sense is an underlying state of this dissipation ...
But in what this natural state of the man would disturb the fatal destiny of the universe, in any case the entropy increases and the energy dissipates gently to disappear forever. Man only punctuates this flow which would be irretrievably lost anyway.
Man is a system which makes it possible to transform the energy of the universe into a state superior to the irremediable dilution of this energy in this sense the latter will never go to the total destruction of its nourishing medium except if the latter finds another medium.

[Ahmed]

Simply because this energy is dissipated to the detriment of what it transforms when natural wealth is destroyed to create an object (commodity) capable of being brought to the market and of rewarding the capital that was necessary at the beginning of the process .
Energy use should not be confused with interaction with nature alone to meet human needs (which is inevitable and normal) with the artifact of exponential economism which condemns us to destroy ever more in order to satisfy an ever more difficult capital increase.
In this sense, the anthropologic neologism, which wanted to be an enlightening concept, only reinforces this confusion: it would have been better to speak of capitalocene.
Globalization corresponds to this search for ever more distant possibilities and can be compared to these bacteria which develop gradually in the petri dish, soon invading the entire surface, increasing their appetite as the explorable surface decreases, to die by lack of food and excess excretion.

I add these recent lines of Sen-no-sen:

For the rest, the study of statistical mechanics is clear: any "progress" (therefore of energy dissipation) leads to the production of entropy which modifies the environment, which within a planetary ecosystem irreparably generates chain destruction.
Thus, technical progress must be understood as an intelligent entity in Darwinian competition with the rest of the forms of life on earth, defending one shamelessly, is therefore done by force of things to the detriment of others.
As a dissipative biological energy structure or "homeostatic" entity, we must understand which side we must choose so as not to end up in the archives of history ...

[sen-no-sen]

This allowed the man to get out of his minimalist living conditions and it is certainly his destiny.

There is a balance in everything, and if indeed the mastery of fire allowed hominids to partially get out of their animal conditions, too much energy dissipation could make us disappear.
The notion of destiny bothers me somewhat, what do you call destiny?

But in what this natural state of the man would disturb the fatal destiny of the universe, in any case the entropy increases and the energy dissipates gently to disappear forever.

Energy does not disappear in accordance with the first principle of thermodynamics, the energy level thus remains the same in the Universe and those of Big Bang until possible Big Crunch / Bounce / Freeze.
What changes is the distribution of energy in a given space, the stronger it is and the more the resulting modifications are important.

Man is a system which makes it possible to transform the energy of the universe into a state superior to the irremediable dilution of this energy in this sense the latter will never go to the total destruction of its nourishing environment except if the latter finds another environment.

If mankind has an unlimited amount of energy it probably won't be to watch the daisies grow.
In the case where we could have such a power, this one will inevitably be used, it will result (and all this has already started) a race for innovation in the fields of NBIC(nanotechnology, biotechnology, computer science, cognitive science) and in space technology.
We will then begin a colonization of the near space, which, faced with our biological limitation will push us towards the modification of our genome, and from iteration to iteration the human race will disappear to give way to other types of entities more able to dissipate energy ... This is our destiny ???

[lilian07]

Yes, that is our destiny .... and man began to dissociate himself from the animal the moment he mastered the fire. He got out of his animal condition and never stopped capturing and dissipating more and more energy. Yes his conscience then made him take another path and he must to consume more energy get out of his physical limits. It is in this sense its destiny since the emergence of consciousness. The final energy of the universe will ultimately be zero. Only in the form of photons lost in the cold infinity without the possibility of drawing this energy lost forever "in this universe determined by its cosmological parameters". So the economy is just one more way to capture more energy from a given number of individuals (those most able to capture more energy ....). Man is above all an energy predator and he will collect the energy of the universe to be able to fill the box with leaven like a microbe. How this is different from the law of natural selection and the competition that leads living organisms, dissipating more and more energy. Man is above all a system more adept at dissipating the energy of the universe which is gradually lost (yes to modify the environment otherwise but on less evolved sub-systems).