Comments on: Fossil Fuels

By: Joffan

Joffan — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:45:53 +0000

Without getting too deeply into the future energy side of things; which as I understand it was mainly an interesting backdrop and analogy for the religious phase of the article; To me, "solar power" roughly takes the analogy of passion, of caring deeply and actively. Global warming is driven by solar energy, redirected by the fossil fuel emissions of the industrial world. In the same way, bloody conflict is driven by human passion directed by the dead hand of dogma. The opportunity and challenge now before us is to remove the religious dogma and instead channel that same passion, the human spirit, into creating and maintaining a rational caring society.

By: Vjatcheslav

Vjatcheslav — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:06:02 +0000

A little remark about christianity: a "true believer" could easily torture unbelieving people until they repent. It simply means that the repenting people don't have to go to hell, which is a very good deed for a christian. Actually, they used such arguments for the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition and the torture of witches.

By: spsmyth

spsmyth — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:26:11 +0000

Also, it seems to take for granted the assumption that humans are a net negative for the planet, which I don't necessarily agree with.

I don't agree with that either, however, (and I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination) humans have, through our technology, raised ourselves above the natural environmental chains. Name one natural predator that humans have besides disease or each other (and please, don't say sharks, sharks attacking humans are always random events).

About the solar panel thing; yes it is true, current silicon panels only capture about 25% of the available spectrum, and the most efficient, made from a combination of germanium, gallium arsenide and gallium indium phosphide grabs about 36% but are cost prohibitive. Currently, there is a joint effort at CIT and MIT working on a three bandgap panel that would capture 50% of the spectrum.

Let me give you a real world example. I personally know people that have solar panels on their roofs that have access to so much power they can store it and still sell a surplus back to their local utility. For bad days, they can use that stored energy or (circumstances forbid) turn the switch back on and get energy from the local.

There is a surplus of solar energy, the reason why development has slowed to a crawl is politicians and the energy companies that have them in their pockets, prefer to live in the 20th century. Why kill a cash cow?

By: Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:35:46 +0000

Is there a way to text a standing ovation? clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
You get the idea.
Great article, thank you for making this a must read.

By: hi

hi — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:23:39 +0000

hi so..... put somthing about the negative effects of fossil fuels on the environment up plz!!!!!!!!!!

By: Shawn Smith

Shawn Smith — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:49:24 +0000

Well, if by, "few decades," you mean one century, and if by, "reproduce well below replacement rate," you mean that there's only one child for every five couples, then I can see how that would work. A big problem with that scenario is that most people in their twenties and thirties enjoy sex too much for that to realistically work. Also, it seems to take for granted the assumption that humans are a net negative for the planet, which I don't necessarily agree with.

By: Alex Weaver

Alex Weaver — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:07:38 +0000

1. Reproduce well below replacement rate.
2. Wait a few decades.

By: Shawn Smith

Shawn Smith — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:31:25 +0000

Alex Weaver, you're right. It's just that as someone who would have died as a toddler had it not been for modern medicine, I see these Malthusian ideas put forth by Mr. Hide as the equivalent of, "Shawn Smith should be dead!" As a result, I tend to fly off the handle when I see them. And I don't see how contraception, no matter how concerted, would be enough to lower the population by at least 90%. Heck, even the Nazis killed "only" 2/3rds of the Jews. And he did talk about the global human population, not some regionally limited area.

By: Alex Weaver

Alex Weaver — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:59:52 +0000

PS: You left out "Take the warning labels off everything that's already obviously dangerous." If we have to try and reduce the population, that approach gets my vote. ;/

By: Alex Weaver

Alex Weaver — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:58:31 +0000

Shawn: While Mr. Hide has not impressed me so far, you should consider that what he may mean is simply a concerted societal effort to have fewer children through contraception and aggressive public information campaigns...or ask him to explain in a less loaded fashion.

By: Shawn Smith

Shawn Smith — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:02:18 +0000

So, Gordon Hide, because you believe "we" need to "address the problem" of there being too many people by at least one order of magnitude (ten times too many, in other words), how exactly would you address it? Forced sterilizations? Post-birth abortions, aka infanticide? Medical experiments (c.f. Monty Python's The Meaning of Life)? Euthanasia? Global thermonuclear war? What exactly, are you proposing?

By: Gordon Hide

Gordon Hide — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:31:44 +0000

There is only one environmental problem. World human population is at least one order of magnitude too high and is still increasing. But don't worry. If we don't address this problem mother nature will address it for us. She has done so many times in the past with other species. Of course nature's macro management of these problems tends to be a little messy.

As for fossilised dogma, education and enlightenment are the only hopes.