Collapse

251 readers

32 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.

Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.

RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemm.ee

maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee

eris@lemm.ee

-2

Solar Panels: Another Exercise in Magical Thinking (2023) (thehonestsorcerer.substack.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by eleitl@lemm.ee to c/collapse@lemm.ee

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

hydrogen for ice and broadly for a power plant is unlikely to be particularly feasible for some annoying engineering problems and because we just need hydrogen for other stuff (farming mostly).

the problem in their analysis is itentirely lacks context. they never use any numbers to illustrate that this is unsustainable, just as a spooky ambiguity when convenient to the very very silly point. here is an example of the questions they should have asked themselves:

"aluminum uses several kWh per kg!", ok, how many kg of al per panel? how many kwh will a panel produce per kg of al in its lifetime? is that amount not only more, but sustainably more? (the answers generally are: a bit, a lot, yes). this is what those "critiqued" analyses are doing, and much more.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

You're still stuck at a shallow ERoEI level of analysis. All that gives you is a trend, assuming you're consistent about the system cut-off.

Just follow the entire production of aluminium starting with mining, transport and processing of bauxite. Including their supply chains. Now do the the same for quartz sand for tempered floatglass. Now the same for silicon. Now the same for copper, polymers, power electronics. Down to the road and the trucks they run on.

And then realize you have to power every single technical process in the entire world on top of that. Does that now ring the bell? Probably not, empirically. I have yet to see a single person to get it after an explanation. Most figure it out on their own, or not at all.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

"you're still stuck on eroei

you need to describes the initial steps of eroei"

and dont geteme wrong, there are other things to consider than eroei, but solar is generally worth it in those contexts as well. things like mining issues, ecosystem damage, carbon costs, etc. of course those were not what were being looked at in the article, just someone's first attempt at eroei from first principles without understanding what they were critiquing.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

As a fossil extender solar PV and wind is definitely worth it. It is empirically possible to power some sort of society indefinitely with renewable power alone, like for instance Japan during the Edo period, or to do slightly better.

Just not this sort of society. And almost nobody is ready to discuss what that implies.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

🙄

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago

We don't seem to be communicating well.

load more comments (1 replies)