Global catastrophe / SHTF "survivable locations"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your SHTF list seems to divide itself into two groups:

1. stuff that is not very likely to happen (pandemic, supervolcano, asteroid, conflict in N.America or Europe)
2. stuff that's more probable but almost always localized and short-term (grid problem, storm, tsunami, etc)

.

If someone is really concerned about all this, get involved. Join local emergency committees, get training in first aid, join the National Guard or a military reserve. Be part of the solution.

I agree people should get involved in the local / regional DEM first aid training ( personally I feel that should be a required class in school) is a great idea.

As to volcanoes well it doesn't take a super volcano to really screw up a region ( Mt St Helens) or global effects mount tambora ( year with out a summer ) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
In this modern age an event like tambora would lead to major crop losses in almost all growing regions.
Just think of how bad it would be food wise in 2022 if there were a major ( VEI 6 or 7) eruption of a tropical volcano this fall/ winter.
Especially with the current crop losses due to this years weather.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ever seen an open-pit coal mine? Deaths per terawatt of energy? Deaths from air pollution?

how about a lithium mine for comparison
https://www.mining.com/tianqi-inject...m-mine-expand/

neither are good environmentally
Not to mention the copper mining that they all require .

https://youtu.be/oaNKjFRuWuY

Now that is a real travesty

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how about a lithium mine for comparison
https://www.mining.com/tianqi-inject...m-mine-expand/

neither are good environmentally
Not to mention the copper mining that they all require .

https://youtu.be/oaNKjFRuWuY

Now that is a real travesty

And that one lithium mine has the capacity to produce more than the current entire worldwide demand for lithium, while many coal plants have their own dedicated coal mine, just for that one power plant!. I'm not sure how I can explain this more clearly, neither I nor anyone else in the renewables industry never even remotely claimed the industry doesn't produce waste. We do claim that it creates orders of magnitude less waste over the lifetime of a plant than an equivalent fossil fuel plant. Continuing to show pictures or articles that indicate that building renewables produces waste is entirely pointless when we're all in violent agreement with you that it does! If you have any lifetime waste comparisons between equivalent producing generators it would be relevant to the topic, however simply restating something we all agree with isn't really adding much. By the way, building house, boats, radios, airplanes, cars, bicycles.....heck everything we use requires mines. Why is their existence an argument against renewables again?
I'm a realist, I think people are going to politically demand a lifestyle that uses a similar amount of energy as they use today. I spend pretty much all day every day actually making that happen while using far fewer resources and producing far less pollution. Despite those who claim it isn't possible that's news to us because it's actually happening at a fairly impressive rate. If a coal plant actually does produce less pollution and waste than a wind farm over it's lifecycle, again, I'd love to dig into the details of that study, please share it with us! If we're just going to post pictures of the lesser damage renewables do to the environment than the existing alternative, noted and agreed and would love to work on reducing those too. I work in energy as well and have all the respect in the world for the folks trying to make that happen. I hope you all eventually put me out of a job, but until then we are working toward a common goal and there's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in the mean time.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Well, that brings to mind two interesting points, both along the lines of reducing our consumption (On the way to becoming more green and reducing the likelihood of a SHTF moment).

1. In my opinion there should be no old, dead FRP boats. When you consider to total human endeavor required to build a boat then we just throw it away, to me is absolutely wasteful and sinful. There must be a business case for re-using old boats instead of discarding them. Maybe making the new ones more expensive would help that business case (see next point).

2. My view is that anyone manufacturing a product should be required to post the plan for it's eventual end of life processing and put up the money to accomplish that. I manufacture something, be it a turbine blade, a mobile phone, an automobile, a boat, a PET plastic bottle, I need to figure out how it will be taken care of and put aside the money to do it. Say a turbine blade: If I have put aside $5000 for it's disposal, and a guy comes to me and says he'll do it for me, I give him the money. New business! My money set aside needs to include the cost of paying somebody to bring it back to me. Another New Business. Why should corporations be allowed to make products which use the planet's resources and then are just disposed of in landfills at taxpayer expense. Much better to reuse existing goods and materials. Send the suggestion to Bernie and Liz.

And exactly WHO is going to hold all that money? The same people who held all the Social Security money and spent it? Look where we are now...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

And exactly WHO is going to hold all that money? The same people who held all the Social Security money and spent it? Look where we are now...

I will hold it for everyone in an undisclosed swiss account and then I will move to an undisclosed private island to properly manage the funds .

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I will hold it for everyone in an undisclosed swiss account and then I will move to an undisclosed private island to properly manage the funds .

That might qualify as a SHTF scenario of some policing agency came for you

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

And that one lithium mine has the capacity to produce more than the current entire worldwide demand for lithium

But not nearly enough for scaling up discontinuous power supplies in lieu of other sources.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

But not nearly enough for scaling up discontinuous power supplies in lieu of other sources.

So we'll need as many lithium mines as we currently have coal mines? Seriously, how many times do I have to state, in bold even!, that there's no question renewables use resources but I challenge you to show they use MORE resources. And yes, the annoying all caps and bold is on purpose because I've said that no fewer than 4 times in this thread and the only answer is ....but but but renewables use resources too....

BTW, lithium based storage is by no means the only storage options. Flow batteries are one of my personal favorites, worth a Google if you're a geek like me on this stuff.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

So we'll need as many lithium mines as we currently have coal mines? Seriously, how many times do I have to state, in bold even!, that there's no question renewables use resources but I challenge you to show they use MORE resources. And yes, the annoying all caps and bold is on purpose because I've said that no fewer than 4 times in this thread and the only answer is ....but but but renewables use resources too....

BTW, lithium based storage is by no means the only storage options. Flow batteries are one of my personal favorites, worth a Google if you're a geek like me on this stuff.

According to a growing number of well-credentialed environmentalists who are actually managing to think independently and outside the well-orchestrated box, so-called "renewables" are not and never will be the answer on the larger scale needed. Whether you or others agree or not, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Michael Shellenberger. According to the school of thought he leads, the push for renewables on a large scale is a mostly unrealistic, emotionally-based, and false association with all things subjectively perceived as "natural" and "green," but ignores reality by grossly exaggerating the upsides while minimizing or excusing the (yes, environmental) downsides. But the push for renewables is on, along with all of its vested financial & political interests pushing for conformity from the well-intentioned but naive masses desperate for solutions. So renewables it shall be, and potential alternatives dismissed, ignored or scorned. A sign of the times. [sigh]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

According to a growing number of well-credentialed environmentalists who are actually managing to think independently and outside the well-orchestrated box, so-called "renewables" are not and never will be the answer on the larger scale needed. Whether you or others agree or not, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Michael Shellenberger. According to the school of thought he leads, the push for renewables on a large scale is a mostly unrealistic, emotionally-based, and false association with all things subjectively perceived as "natural" and "green," but ignores reality by grossly exaggerating the upsides while minimizing or excusing the (yes, environmental) downsides. But the push for renewables is on, along with all of its vested financial & political interests pushing for conformity from the well-intentioned but naive masses desperate for solutions. So renewables it shall be, and potential alternatives dismissed, ignored or scorned. A sign of the times. [sigh]

The implication that environmentalists "in the box" all oppose nuclear is wrong. And the "renewables and only renewables" stance you are claiming they all have is also false.

I am in favour of nuclear, and I'm the conformiest of the green conformers, right?

There are of course other factors to consider.

In his piece [in New York, the center-right commentator Andrew] Sullivan claims that “nuclear power was left out entirely” from the Green New Deal, which he calls “staggering.” He links to a Popular Mechanics article that says the same thing.The problem is that it was included in the Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal demands 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” The watchwords here are clean and zero-emission, both coded language for nuclear power.
... the most detailed version of a Green New Deal online, from the leftist group Data for Progress, recognizes the importance of “clean sources such as nuclear.” And the author of that report told me explicitly on Twitter: “I support more nuclear.”

Sam Ori, the executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago: “It is interesting to me that conservatives flock to nuclear power. They point to France! I can’t get over that,” Ori told me last week, sounding bewildered. “It’s a state-run industry in France. The way they were able to get to 80 or 90 percent nuclear is that they didn’t worry about market forces. They just did it.”

Maybe you could help yank the subsidies away from fossil fuels and put'em behind nuclear.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The implication that environmentalists "in the box" all oppose nuclear is wrong. And the "renewables and only renewables" stance you are claiming they all have is also false.

Your use of the word all supports the "implication" you're trying to ascribe to my post but not the one I actually wrote nor intended.

I am in favour of nuclear, and I'm the conformiest of the green conformers, right?

There seems to be a growing awakening within the environmental movement that no longer (emotionally) associates civilian nuclear power with nuclear bombs & armageddon. Good to hear you've "woke".

There are of course other factors to consider.

Obviously. As redneckrob has been pointing out, none of the alternatives to fossil fuels are a panacea.

Maybe you could help yank the subsidies away from fossil fuels and put'em behind nuclear.

First you need to reeducate people away from the false notion most environmentalists have been touting for decades about the horrors of civilian nuclear power. Accomplish that and the govt will get behind it. In the meantime, advancement in fossil fuel extraction technology, namely fracking & its production of cleaner burning natural gas, has already proven itself to have resulted in the largest single reduction in carbon emissions. Not a longer term solution but certainly a helpful stopgap. There's a big difference between corporate subsidies which many from both sides of the political spectrum justifiably oppose, and use of the tax code to incentivize innovation and new technology. Your use of the term "subsidy" simply parrots political talking points.

In any event, and as others have already commented, it is doubtful that any sort of human-caused environmental events will result in the sort of SHTF scenario that the thread topic is referring to. So the issue of renewable energy hardly seems relevant.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Seriously, how many times do I have to state, in bold even!, that there's no question renewables use resources but I challenge you to show they use MORE resources.

It isn't about MORE, it's about use rate as a function of total resources. I worked on an option assessment back in the 90s that would have exhausted lithium reserves in just 15 years for just one government program. That isn't anything like the resource requirements for grid scale energy storage.

Betting our future on technology that isn't demonstrated seems unwise. We can grow a lot of potaotoes but there is only so much zinc and copper.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's no disagreement that conservation is one of the most important parts of the energy solution; the kwh you don't use is a kwh (or more) we don't need to generate and deliver. And it's the part that we as consumers have the the most control over, in our choices and actions.



... you lost me.



... nope, I still don't know what you're trying to say.

The harder parts of the "green" issue are that we have far too much reliance on a finite resource, and the extent of this reliance is harming us, not only environmentally, but also politically.

We NEED to find and develop alternates that give us the energy we require, indefinitely, without the harms currently caused by our coal/oil addiction. Whether this new source is solar, or wind, or nuclear, or even a cleaner nat. gas generator... it will involve research, investment, development and manufacturing. This should be obvious.

Of course we need a "new “green” manufacturing base and infrastructure". Bonus fact - this will create the opportunities, jobs and prosperity of the future.

(and the above also applies to non-energy issues like pollution, plastics, fertilizer use, etc. Overall, we need to stop making such a mess, and figure out cleaner ways to do stuff)

Also, everything wears out, demand is still growing... there will always be manufacturing and upgrading of our power infrastructure, regardless of energy source.

It’s simple. Think of money. Say you make $100 k / year. You get a raise to $120k. How many of us save that extra? Not many, most just up their spedi g and still live band to mouth.

You are better to learn to live on an $80k budget than to get a $20 k bump.

Same with renewables, if we just increase energy use to consume the renewable energy we have not done anything useful.

We would be better to not have renewables and reduce energy use by 20%.

Now if we both, renewables and conservation , that’s great. But without conservation it’s a wasted effort.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Well, that brings to mind two interesting points, both along the lines of reducing our consumption (On the way to becoming more green and reducing the likelihood of a SHTF moment).

1. In my opinion there should be no old, dead FRP boats. When you consider to total human endeavor required to build a boat then we just throw it away, to me is absolutely wasteful and sinful. There must be a business case for re-using old boats instead of discarding them. Maybe making the new ones more expensive would help that business case (see next point).

2. My view is that anyone manufacturing a product should be required to post the plan for it's eventual end of life processing and put up the money to accomplish that. I manufacture something, be it a turbine blade, a mobile phone, an automobile, a boat, a PET plastic bottle, I need to figure out how it will be taken care of and put aside the money to do it. Say a turbine blade: If I have put aside $5000 for it's disposal, and a guy comes to me and says he'll do it for me, I give him the money. New business! My money set aside needs to include the cost of paying somebody to bring it back to me. Another New Business. Why should corporations be allowed to make products which use the planet's resources and then are just disposed of in landfills at taxpayer expense. Much better to reuse existing goods and materials. Send the suggestion to Bernie and Liz.

Great posts. I’ve been thinking along the lines of #2 for many years.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It’s simple. Think of money. Say you make $100 k / year. You get a raise to $120k. How many of us save that extra? Not many, most just up their spedi g and still live band to mouth.

You are better to learn to live on an $80k budget than to get a $20 k bump.

Same with renewables, if we just increase energy use to consume the renewable energy we have not done anything useful.

We would be better to not have renewables and reduce energy use by 20%.

That really doesn't make any sense at all. How does simply changing or developing new energy sources make one use more energy??

Use of energy is mostly dictated by need and price. Supply and demand. Period. The appearance of renewables hasn't lowered the price of energy. It's just provided a cleaner, more sustainable source.