Why we have to start living more like the Na'vi now

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

[attacks on nuclear power plants in a conventional war]
Not a lot? Radiation shielding works both ways, after all. Conventional bombs don't do much against metres of solid concrete. Fukishima would have worked perfectly had there not been a tsunami. It was correctly designed to withstand an earthquake of that size, and bombs are a lot smaller than earthquakes. [...]
Unfortunately I can't find a specific one, which is rather annoying. Have a general article on it instead. Considering there's redundancies on top of redundancies in an almost Yo-Dawg fashion, it certainly looks secure enough for almost everything except the perfect disaster.

Wait - you have not even looked into this truely? You just look at Wikipedia when the topic comes up? I am a bit annoyed now. I can tell you a number of the safety systems off my head and I can assure you that in case of a war, they would not suffice. For once, no one would be so stupid as to try and bomb the containment vessel. I can imagine that even that can be broken with several good sized precision guided missiles, but it is much easier to blast the surrounding buildings to smithereens and wait until the containment blows itself.
So I urge you seriously to look at how a nuclear power plant is constructed, how it works and what the safety features are.
Some hints: The spent fuel pools containing more radioactive materials than the core are under a regular layer of concrete (the hydrogen explosions in Fukushima blasted that away, exposing the pools to air). Even in shutdown mode, the core has to be cooled, which needs pumps, electricity and water, which needs working diesel generators and enough diesel, a working pipe system and working power connections. Those are not all inside the containment vessel. Many plants have a "single point of failure". A close friend was talking to a nuclear engineer the other day and he knew these points for a handful of reactors in Germany. These are places where a small missile would have to be targeted at and the whole plant would go critical without strong intervention from the outside. This is of course true for all of these scenarios - a catastrophe can be prevented always by putting in rescue efforts, but do you think that this is an easy task in a warzone?

Self-fuelling reactors are hardly necessary. We can get plenty of fuel out of the sea. (And I don't know where you'd get the idea that it fuses lithium, since that'd be very much harder than fusing deuterium.)

The next near future project to create viable fusion uses it. Basically it is needed to make tritium, which is not as abundant as deuterium. There is as of yet no technology planned to actually use seawater to fuel fusion reactors.

Type I civilisations don't. To the future?

- I am going to stop argueing with you I think. You are completely immersed in a SciFi fantasy world to a point that its hopeless.

Originally Posted by Dognik

Energy Efficiency has always to be compared to the absolute Energy Consumption. And as you see there are every day more new and more efficient engines and other stuff, but the Energy consumption has never become less

It is called Jevons Paradox. The problem is not that its not possible to make more efficient use of electricity and then actually use less, the problem is that people chose instead to use more uses. So if your bill for power is 30$ a month and you get more efficient appliances, you may reduce it to 15$. Then you have $15 that you can use for example to get more appliances. The prime example of this is light sources. Whenever there was in increase in efficiency - from burning candles to natural gas to electric bulbs to halogen bulbs to fluorescent bulbs to LEDs the reaction of people was not to keep light usage at a constant and save energy, but to increase light usage and keep energy usage at a constant (or even increase). This leads to a long path from people using candles only when needed at night to have some light on the way to the bathroom, to read a story or therelike to people now having permanent lights at their homes that illuminate the path to the house, the staircases or people just leaving lights on when not needed because it does not cost somuch anymore. People get larger christmas decorations, build computer casemodding with light effects or use groovy indirect background illumination. All of these are certainly cool, nice and in a way worth something, but instead of reducing consumption, the benefit of increased efficiency goes into having more luxuries, amenities or fun stuff. That doesnt have to be bad, but the point is that it does not really save energy in the end.
Same is true many many other times. For example with cars - people now buy cars that are twice as large but only use as much gasoline as their old small one. What would make sense would be to get a new small car that uses even less gasoline. But people dont do that.
Or computer power - it would certainly be possible now to build a computer that has the capabilities of a desktop PC from 10 years ago that uses a fraction of the resources and energy than 10 years ago. But that rarely is done (except in speciality cases and then usually as a "second computer", for example a mobile one). Instead the increase in efficiency is used to build even more powerful computers that in the end use up more energy than the one from 10 years ago. Consequently nowadays Desktop PC power supplies have 300 or 500 Watts compared to 200 Watts some years ago and Graphic cards have water cooling systems to get rid of all the heat that comes from that more efficient graphic processors...

These are just examples but the problem is widespread enough - end especially it applies to industry in which case the choice between saving energy and increasing production is a no-brainer for the management...

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

It is called Jevons Paradox. The problem is not that its not possible to make more efficient use of electricity and then actually use less, the problem is that people chose instead to use more uses. So if your bill for power is 30$ a month and you get more efficient appliances, you may reduce it to 15$. Then you have $15 that you can use for example to get more appliances.

Hey, you are supposed to be the idealist here! I mean that is something I would write when I'm feeling moody, but at the moment I'm rather neutral, which is surprising considering how I felt yesterday, but I digress.

We should form a education duo and teach people how to save electricity and tell them about the wonders of modern day efficiency. I don't even know why I'm sort of joking with the subject, but I feel rather weird right now.

The prime example of this is light sources. Whenever there was in increase in efficiency - from burning candles to natural gas to electric bulbs to halogen bulbs to fluorescent bulbs to LEDs the reaction of people was not to keep light usage at a constant and save energy, but to increase light usage and keep energy usage at a constant (or even increase).

But candles are so nice. I could literally stare the flame for many minutes without blinking, because there is some kind of primal beauty in fire, I don't know. Come to think of it, have you ever calculated if it would be more environmental friendly to use candles as a light source instead of your average light bulb, halogen or what have you. I think the manufacturing of the bulbs in itself is the process most hazardous, but this is just guesswork on my part, because you are the expert on these things.

This leads to a long path from people using candles only when needed at night to have some light on the way to the bathroom, to read a story or therelike to people now having permanent lights at their homes that illuminate the path to the house, the staircases or people just leaving lights on when not needed because it does not cost somuch anymore.

I think this is the kind vanity that I would be guilty of if given the possibility to do so, but at least I acknowledge that fault within myself. Lights are very pretty at times, especially in the dark autumn nights when there is not yet snow to reflect what little light there is, so it's really really dark. And sometimes it's also fun to turn of all the lights and just stare into the darkness.

People get larger christmas decorations, build computer casemodding with light effects or use groovy indirect background illumination. All of these are certainly cool, nice and in a way worth something, but instead of reducing consumption, the benefit of increased efficiency goes into having more luxuries, amenities or fun stuff. That doesnt have to be bad, but the point is that it does not really save energy in the end.

The scale of consumption though is not always that linear. For example, the power consumption of fancy LEDs used in casemodding usually use but a fraction of the energy the entire system uses. I'm not into the whole blinking computer stuff myself, because I prefer mine as silent and elegant without any sort of glittery light and other nonsense.

Same is true many many other times. For example with cars - people now buy cars that are twice as large but only use as much gasoline as their old small one. What would make sense would be to get a new small car that uses even less gasoline. But people dont do that.

Cars are rubbish these days. I once spent a while going about in a car shop and looking at the efficiency numbers, and even the most modest 1.0L engine wasn't even close to impressive.

Or computer power - it would certainly be possible now to build a computer that has the capabilities of a desktop PC from 10 years ago that uses a fraction of the resources and energy than 10 years ago. But that rarely is done (except in speciality cases and then usually as a "second computer", for example a mobile one). Instead the increase in efficiency is used to build even more powerful computers that in the end use up more energy than the one from 10 years ago.

We should really have long and useful conversation about this subject, because it is a current favourite of mine, and I happen to know quite a lot about it. I currently have a computer that is fully awesome, and it uses as much power idle as the old 2004 variant that is on the same desk as backup computer. The computing powers aren't even comparable due to the laughable scaling and whatnot, and my main computer still uses less power while still doing loads of more stuff.

And while I am guilty of getting performance at the cost of power consumption, it is because I need it, and while my computer isn't the best in raw power consumption, it's certainly top tier on the desktop side. I could give you examples of much worse configurations and components, but I will not go there now.

Consequently nowadays Desktop PC power supplies have 300 or 500 Watts compared to 200 Watts some years ago and Graphic cards have water cooling systems to get rid of all the heat that comes from that more efficient graphic processors...

My sweet Aurora, I know you mean well and all, but don't discredit yourself when speaking about things you know only so much about. While all of what you say is true, it is merely a one side of a much larger whole. Again this is a subject I could tell you much about, and clear some misconceptions you might have, but I can only do so if you want me to.

These are just examples but the problem is widespread enough - end especially it applies to industry in which case the choice between saving energy and increasing production is a no-brainer for the management...

And while you are once again correct, we both know the problem is inherent in the system itself, that encourages and forces this kind of behaviour.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Hey, you are supposed to be the idealist here!

I am only in a certain aspect - in that I say that there needs to be deep cultural change. Jevons Paradox is IMO not an inevitability, it only is so in the context of a culture that resides on the paradigms of progress and growth as the basis for its existence. People in this culture prefer growth and progress over stability. Stability is even sort of a bad word now, because it has the connotation of something static and boring. But in a culture that values growth over all, it is inevitable that increases in efficiency end up powering more growth and progress instead of reducing consumption. In a different culture that has at its root things like preservation, sustainability and caretaking, an incerase in efficiency might actually lead to a true reduction in consumption while just maintaining what is or even having some slow growth.

But candles are so nice....have you ever calculated if it would be more environmental friendly to use candles as a light source instead of your average light bulb, halogen or what have you. I think the manufacturing of the bulbs in itself is the process most hazardous

I never calculated that. Calculations like that are extremely complicated, because something like a fluorescent light bulb or a LED is a product of a highly fractured, complex industrial machinery. To factor all this in to the right porportion - from the metals used, the minerals needed for that metal, the mining used for that, the oil used in mining and the coal used in smeltering, the electricity used in production, the coal mined for the electricity, the water use of these industries, the social impacts and the lot... you see what I mean, it gets out of hand very quiickly and many of the things associated are not quantifyable in money anyways. Of course to have as much light as with a fluorescent lightbulb you'd need many candles and the consumption would be horrific. And in the end, unless you get the candles from beeswax, even that process costs resources without end. Certainly to use a single beeswax candle to read a book is much more sustainable than even the most efficient light bulb that still depends on all kinds of industrial processes and nonrenewable resources - even if it allows for much more light

I think this is the kind vanity that I would be guilty of if given the possibility to do so, but at least I acknowledge that fault within myself. Lights are very pretty at times

Of course. That is why I said that this also has some value. Nowadays we can with the same energy have bright lights during dark nights where our ancestors had a candle. But fact is that overall we use a lot more energy than in the past, despite (or because of) increasing energy efficiency in part

The scale of consumption though is not always that linear. For example, the power consumption of fancy LEDs used in casemodding usually use but a fraction of the energy the entire system uses.

Yes but before the computer system did not use any power to create fancy lights. Ok maybe the power-led

I currently have a computer that is fully awesome, and it uses as much power idle as the old 2004 variant that is on the same desk as backup computer. The computing powers aren't even comparable due to the laughable scaling and whatnot, and my main computer still uses less power while still doing loads of more stuff.

And while I am guilty of getting performance at the cost of power consumption, it is because I need it

I did not quite understand the first part, but I think what happens a lot is that people will rather buy a computer that uses more power in total than one that consumes less but only has the capabilities of one that existed 10 years ago. This is because one wants to play 3D high resolution games or do crazy 3D modelling or edit large photos. Mostly the first one though I guess. The extreme alternative would be to reduce consumption extremely. One certainly can now play PacMan on a microprocessor that uses just the energy from a small solar cell instead of needing a C64 computer.
Lately I see some hope in that people start to put more value to energy consumption because they want mobile devices and battery capacity is limited. If battery capacity goes up again, I am sure so will energy consumption by these devices as a tradeoff to vastly increased computational capacity.

And while you are once again correct, we both know the problem is inherent in the system itself, that encourages and forces this kind of behaviour.

Yes sure. And I think that this "system" is based on a culture of growth and progress at all costs which is killing the planet. Capitalism, Jevons Paradox and all the lot are things that come from that foundation of the cultural narrative that describes members of industrial human nations as infinitely innovative and progress as unidirectional and ever increasing. The money system with interest is based on growth as is the whole financial industry but also technology is drawn into that spiral. People cherish "Moores Law" that predicts exponential growth of computational power because growth is always good, just the costs have to be reduced. But in so many cases over and over again, the costs have decreased less strongly than the growth of that sector. I just read that while computational power increases every 18 months, it takes 20 months to halve the energy consumption per operation. This means that if one makes full use of the capabilities of Moores law and uses the new computational capabilities, overall the total energy consumption has to rise. This is no inevitability for individuals, but for society as a whole I think it is true that energy consumption by computer devices has risen strongly over the past years, in part because they have gotten more efficient and thus much mor ubiquotous.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I did not quite understand the first part, but I think what happens a lot is that people will rather buy a computer that uses more power in total than one that consumes less but only has the capabilities of one that existed 10 years ago. This is because one wants to play 3D high resolution games or do crazy 3D modelling or edit large photos.

I assure you, if I didn't need a computer that happens to use more power, I'd be pretty much ecstatic Unfortunately, I need to run Avid, Ableton, and a ****ton of Adobe things for school, and probably Avid even after I get out (one possible career path).

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am only in a certain aspect - in that I say that there needs to be deep cultural change. Jevons Paradox is IMO not an inevitability, it only is so in the context of a culture that resides on the paradigms of progress and growth as the basis for its existence. People in this culture prefer growth and progress over stability. Stability is even sort of a bad word now, because it has the connotation of something static and boring. But in a culture that values growth over all, it is inevitable that increases in efficiency end up powering more growth and progress instead of reducing consumption. In a different culture that has at its root things like preservation, sustainability and caretaking, an incerase in efficiency might actually lead to a true reduction in consumption while just maintaining what is or even having some slow growth.

I recently heard that John Von Neumann did some work on this, relating to the behaviour of dynamic and static equilibriums. I got the impression that he showed in some way that it's impossible to have equilibrium in a non-growing economy, but I can't find any source for that that isn't pay-walled.

Yes sure. And I think that this "system" is based on a culture of growth and progress at all costs which is killing the planet. Capitalism, Jevons Paradox and all the lot are things that come from that foundation of the cultural narrative that describes members of industrial human nations as infinitely innovative and progress as unidirectional and ever increasing. The money system with interest is based on growth as is the whole financial industry but also technology is drawn into that spiral. People cherish "Moores Law" that predicts exponential growth of computational power because growth is always good, just the costs have to be reduced. But in so many cases over and over again, the costs have decreased less strongly than the growth of that sector. I just read that while computational power increases every 18 months, it takes 20 months to halve the energy consumption per operation. This means that if one makes full use of the capabilities of Moores law and uses the new computational capabilities, overall the total energy consumption has to rise. This is no inevitability for individuals, but for society as a whole I think it is true that energy consumption by computer devices has risen strongly over the past years, in part because they have gotten more efficient and thus much mor ubiquotous.

But we must remember that technology is not constrained by Moore's law. The only thing it is constrained by is the laws of physics, and it is AFAIK both Intel's and AMD's belief that transistors are old-hat.

And they're right. How does a energy saving of 100,000,000% sound?

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am only in a certain aspect - in that I say that there needs to be deep cultural change. Jevons Paradox is IMO not an inevitability, it only is so in the context of a culture that resides on the paradigms of progress and growth as the basis for its existence. People in this culture prefer growth and progress over stability.

This culture relies on growth, it's not a matter of choice or preference, because it's built that way. Isn't it funny when two people who essentially agree just nitpick on things like these?

Stability is even sort of a bad word now, because it has the connotation of something static and boring. But in a culture that values growth over all, it is inevitable that increases in efficiency end up powering more growth and progress instead of reducing consumption. In a different culture that has at its root things like preservation, sustainability and caretaking, an incerase in efficiency might actually lead to a true reduction in consumption while just maintaining what is or even having some slow growth.

The system is unfortunately built that way, yet there are still certain limits of consumption on individual basis. Though that's offset by the fact that there are simply so many individuals and they all consume resources separately instead of sharing them efficiently. Like comparing a household of 2 people vs. a household of 10 people, as the household of 10 doesn't consume 5 times as much as the one with only 2.

Of course. That is why I said that this also has some value. Nowadays we can with the same energy have bright lights during dark nights where our ancestors had a candle. But fact is that overall we use a lot more energy than in the past, despite (or because of) increasing energy efficiency in part

Somehow I lost my train of thought there completely, so I'll just go Derpy on this one and say: Money

Yes but before the computer system did not use any power to create fancy lights. Ok maybe the power-led

One would have to build a computer that puts the 70s' discos to shame if we are to go near comparable figures, but I guess you are talking about the principle.

I did not quite understand the first part, but I think what happens a lot is that people will rather buy a computer that uses more power in total than one that consumes less but only has the capabilities of one that existed 10 years ago.

The main problem with it is that while computers have become better, the interface has remained the same for ages now. We still input commands via keyboard and use mouse around, and if one is futuristic enough, then you might even have a touch screen display on your desktop. Majority of computer users, the usual internet, youtube, e-mail etc. would be just fine with one of these. (I would go with the E-350, and I thought about building a eco machine from that for my parents, but then that idea kind of got lost somewhere along the way.)

Most people just don't understand anything about the stuff they buy, computers included, and they just trust everything the salesmen tell them, and if the salesmen happen to have good relations with the local energy company, chances are that they are not going to recommend you the most efficient models.

I don't think people would just buy something because it uses more energy, even if they could do as well with a less powerful model, so they just buy something that works. And as it happens, like I said earlier, the majority of users would be completely happy with a computer that has the computational capabilities of a 10 year old model, but uses far less energy, but that's not where the mass markets are, so you know how it goes...

This is because one wants to play 3D high resolution games or do crazy 3D modelling or edit large photos. Mostly the first one though I guess. The extreme alternative would be to reduce consumption extremely. One certainly can now play PacMan on a microprocessor that uses just the energy from a small solar cell instead of needing a C64 computer.

Remind me to hold you a personal presentation about this subject, because when I start to think about it, I could write a page or two about this subject if I got my creativity properly going.

Lately I see some hope in that people start to put more value to energy consumption because they want mobile devices and battery capacity is limited. If battery capacity goes up again, I am sure so will energy consumption by these devices as a tradeoff to vastly increased computational capacity.

I'm fascinated by energy efficiency even on my desktop, and I have a power meter connected to the wall socket so I see how much power the system draws at any give time... 166W would be right now, but that is because I have folding@home running on all four cores.

I'm tempted to to upgrade for Ivy Bridge when it comes out next year, because it's even more energy efficient than my current model, and it's compatible with my current motherboard. I could even downgrade a bit on the performance side if the promised TDP values are anything to go by. Can't say for sure until I see final performance benchmarks, but so far it's looking really good if only Intel keeps their prices reasonable...

Yes sure. And I think that this "system" is based on a culture of growth and progress at all costs which is killing the planet. Capitalism, Jevons Paradox and all the lot are things that come from that foundation of the cultural narrative that describes members of industrial human nations as infinitely innovative and progress as unidirectional and ever increasing. The money system with interest is based on growth as is the whole financial industry but also technology is drawn into that spiral.

The problem is that technology is harnessed to serve the money system, so technology has also become corrupt because of this.

People cherish "Moores Law" that predicts exponential growth of computational power because growth is always good, just the costs have to be reduced. But in so many cases over and over again, the costs have decreased less strongly than the growth of that sector. I just read that while computational power increases every 18 months, it takes 20 months to halve the energy consumption per operation. This means that if one makes full use of the capabilities of Moores law and uses the new computational capabilities, overall the total energy consumption has to rise. This is no inevitability for individuals, but for society as a whole I think it is true that energy consumption by computer devices has risen strongly over the past years, in part because they have gotten more efficient and thus much mor ubiquotous.

You have raised my interest, and now I have to check into that later on, but for now I'm too tired to go pursue information. Suffice to say that most people don't need the raw computational power that is available these days, but the mass markets dictate what is sold and what is not, and so on...

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I assure you, if I didn't need a computer that happens to use more power, I'd be pretty much ecstatic Unfortunately, I need to run Avid, Ableton, and a ****ton of Adobe things for school, and probably Avid even after I get out (one possible career path).

Video editing is one those things that is an endless computational capacity sink, but it does require pretty good hardware if you are not patient enough to wait for a whole day for a single task to complete.

Then again hardware video encoding and the likes are pretty neat, although the quality is one thing that's not as good as it is with software, but this is something I do not know nearly enough to really talk about.

Originally Posted by Clarke

But we must remember that technology is not constrained by Moore's law. The only thing it is constrained by is the laws of physics, and it is AFAIK both Intel's and AMD's belief that transistors are old-hat.

And they're right. How does a energy saving of 100,000,000% sound?

I think Intel for one won't be too pleased about the transition from transistors based chips, because they have so much invested in their fabs that it's not even funny. Ok, I lied, it is funny... At least the pun is...

I'm way too tired...