| the2real4mafol said:
China is following similar trends to Japan in the 60s and early 70s from the looks of it although they have far more land to expand onto. Energy is the big problem (for them and everyone else) as you said but relying on fossil fuels just won't cut it with such a high demand and instability of many regions around the world. |
Fossil fuels aren't indeed an answer in mid-term scenario, but at this point you won't find a single meaningful contry that is ready to shift to other energy resources. Renewables are hoax, an epic "revelation" made by Germany's minsiter earlier this year in front of "green energy" bomonde: "Energiewende program is on the verge of failure" :D The guys who sold Germany idea of major investment in renewables are either traitors or idiots, or both. Renewables outside hydro are leech upon the cheap fossil fuels and with readily available oil gone their efficency is droping below self-sustaining levels. This is a dead-end. What we have on another hand? Nuclear energy, that's more interesting topic. Well, when Hubbert was drawing his curve he assumed steady process of replacement with nuclear energy, but by now it is clear we as a humanity far-far behind the trends and inability to replace fossil fuels declining production only makes it worse (even though barrels won't be entirely empty, but scissors of declining demand and price from the above and declinign EROI that ramping up the production cost from below will speed the process up). Over here, which is Russian equivalent of ZH the guy from within the industry have made a very rough analysis what size of a project that'd be to replace Russia's energy consumption in 2020-50 with nuclear-generated energy, based on newly put into production BN-1200 (his smaller counterpart BN-800 is mind you first proudction series reactor of its kind to be run commercially this year) -- his diagnosis is 4 energy blocks a year, a GOELRO-sized project -- needless to say even if Rosatom stops all other projects abrod now that's not realistic and decline in energy production is unavoidable. The sad part is this's relatively good scenario when it comes to replacement with nuclear energy, for once fuel for fast-neutron reactors are in order of magnitude more common than smth like VVER would have used. What else we've got? Thorium reactors, zero commercial availability. Everything else is even less realistic.
| the2real4mafol said:
The west needs to stop thinking it can grow anymore, the world is finite. Pretty simple really And the global debt is probably something that ridiculous. Although its hard to understand how it got so high in the first place. |
Here's to take a peak on how that was made possible, energy consumption per capita, a more meaningful indicator of one's wealth than GDP per capita btw if you "clean" it from various noises and present, say, only real sector economy consumption, quite literally everything could be converted in kcal. The author of the articel did make a solid point, the US energy consumption is more or less within 1970s boundaries, while "real" (or rather available) wealth is obviously up since that time. How to solve that dilemma? Well, take a look at household debt, even timeframe, the 1970s, very well reasonates with this. Everyone is guilty of the same by beleving in this seemengly endless "growth", but some more than the others.
| the2real4mafol said:
Also what do you mean by lumpenization? I never heard of that before. |
What? That's not an English word? :D I get carried away at times with occasional russisms, that might not be used or used in different meaning in English. The word "lumpen" is from Marxian vocabulary, same as pauper, declassified proletariat, poor people in common speech, that's more or less the same what's yakuza originally.
