Imminent Economic Collapse?

[River Don]

On a cheery note read this. A lot of it's conclusions are difficult to argue with I'm afraid.

It is a bit lengthy but there are a lot of photographs and white space, and what it has to say is quite compelling, it doesn't take too long to digest.

http://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/TPSI_009_Perfect_Storm_009.pdf

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD

Tullet Prebon are of the "we've all gone soft and hell-fire and damnation are on the way" school of right-wing economics.

I've said before that, no matter how many times the latter-day Malthusians are proved wrong by events, they ALWAYS come back with different circumstances but the same conclusion. And they ALWAYS underestimate the power of human ingenuity to forge technological solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

[River Don]

Never the less, it's still worth taking a little time to read I think BST.

As for ingenuity and technical solutions, Terry Smith has an interesting analogy to the predicament we're in. Lock a group of eminent scientists in a secure room with the worlds most powerful computers and ask them to create a ham sandwich.


Interestingly perhaps, this report is under attack from the right wing press. I came by it after reading an article denigrating it in the Telegraph.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I read it about 6 months back. It's well written and a compelling argument. But the point is that equally doom-laden futurology has been written at regular intervals for the past 250 years. And it is ALWAYS proved wrong by technological developments.

Not sure I see the point of the ham sandwich crack. How about the scientists/technologists who invented steam engines, internal combustion engines, oil extraction, solar panels, dynamos, electricity grids, hydro-electric power, nuclear power stations, wind turbines, etc, etc, etc

Any of those technologies would have looked like black magic to the people of 50-100 years before their invention. and that is why I have little time for non-technically educated talking heads pontificating on the future of the world. They ALWAYS make the mistake of projecting today's technologies forward and ALWAYS underestimate the power of technological advance to come up with astonishing new possibilities that shift the paradigm.

And by the way, if there is one over-riding reason why China will inherit the earth, it is because their leading politicians are mostly educated as engineers and scientists. We, on the other hand, with our obsession with Oxbridge educated lawyers, classicist and PPE graduates in the upper eschelons of Govt & Civil Service, have rulers deeply unsuited to an age in which technological change is accelerating.

[River Don]

It's a good point about Chinese politicians. Many of our engineering businesses were destroyed once they got into the hands of people with no engineering experience. Crazy or what? Anyway...


The core point he makes is, given the pressing need where are the new energy sources we need?

Yes, we have renewables, nuclear, shale gas but not of it produces anything like the amounts of energy we need to replace oil. The silver bullet looks to be fusion but that is still decades off at least, assuming it can be ever be proven to work.

Perhaps necessity will produce a solution but we're already cutting it very fine.

[wilts rover]

Sorry I couldn't get any further than the contents page, that bored me stiff.

I agree with BST, as that is what history shows us actually happens. We are facing an impending oil crises - so people are working on alternative energy. I am sure a similar report was done on the effects of the bubonic plague and concluded, 'we're all gonna die'. But we didn't. Lock those chaps in the room with computers and what will they do - look for a way out to go get the sandwich, dont underestimate imagination, dreams, lateral thinking and ingenuity.

[Viking Don]

My solar panels give me free lecky every daylight hour even when it's dull, I even export half of what they generate back into the grid. All we need are these things on every roof space all over the world and the need for fossil fuel power stations is wiped out. Cover the Sahara with them, a few nomadic tribes might have a moan and some may get lost to terrorists but that's a risk with any energy installation.

And that's just basic 2010 solar panel technology. Now if we went for geothermic energy, wind, tidal etc then I think we're OK when the oil runs out and we still haven't got fusion.

[BobG]

Talking about covering the Sahara Don, I've wondered, for years and years and years why no one, not no one as far as I've ever been able to see, has suggested we change the albedo of planet Earth. Earth getting too hot? Well paint the f**ker white then! Simplistic I know, but reflecting incoming rays back into space is so bloody obvious it's untrue. It would take aeons to deliver of course, but lets say all cars should be white, roof tiles should be white and flat roofs should be painted with some white sealing compound. There's billions of things you could do with that basic idea. Even stupid ideas like dropping talcum powder all over the Saraha would have an impact. (Bit short term I know once the wind blows!) You could even reflect and focus loadsa sun rays to a point in space and use that scary amount of heat to generate electricity. A 'space ladder' type thing is perfectly feasible so transporting water up and power down ought to be conceivable.

BobG

[Glyn_Wigley]

My solar panels give me free lecky every daylight hour even when it's dull, I even export half of what they generate back into the grid. All we need are these things on every roof space all over the world and the need for fossil fuel power stations is wiped out. Cover the Sahara with them, a few nomadic tribes might have a moan and some may get lost to terrorists but that's a risk with any energy installation.

And that's just basic 2010 solar panel technology. Now if we went for geothermic energy, wind, tidal etc then I think we're OK when the oil runs out and we still haven't got fusion.

You're only looking at the output side of the equation. It's not free energy - there would be massive costs in doing what you're suggesting in terms of raw materials and manufacturing costs; even when it's installed and running there are maintenance and replacement costs.

[Viking Don]

I'm not looking at the output side Glyn, the input side is going to be with us for as long as we're here and longer. Yes it would involve massive costs to put in place and maintain, but isn't that exactly what we're doing at the moment trying to sustain fuels that we know damn well are not only going to run out in our lifetimes, but are probably causing immense damage to the environment at the same time.

I'm not asking for 'free' energy, just the kind that is sustainable in an age where oil causes wars (and Man City hohoho). I paid well over the odds for my panels back in the days when it was a no brainer cos HMGovt were basically paying me to do it, as they still are, but they're quite cheap really to produce and fit, as seen by the dramatic reduction in price since the scheme ended.

Just as a for instance, the new railway is gonna cost 32 Billion or something daft - we could put solar panels on every roof in Britain for less than that. And think about just how many jobs that would create, the length and breadth of the nation! So more taxes etc, I'm sure I don't have to explain it.

BYW I posted this link ages ago, it's fairly simple to follow and makes a complete mockery of economic growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[wilts rover]

steam - its the future

http://www.steampunkdoncaster.org/

[Glyn_Wigley]

BYW I posted this link ages ago, it's fairly simple to follow and makes a complete mockery of economic growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

No it doesn't, because it's b*llocks and based on the wholly fallacious supposition of a FIXED exponential. The real world isn't like that. But that's what you expect from a physics professor using mathematics to try and teach economics.

[Viking Don]

Love to know what your 'real world' is.

Me, I believe in numbers, not economist's versions of the truth, those types have really advanced our society haven't they. I tend to trust maths 'cos it can't be changed by 'bankers', and physicists cos they're standing on the shoulders of giants rather than the heads of those in the third world.

[mjdgreg]

Imminent economic collapse? Yes we are definitely headed that way thanks to all that living on credit espoused by the Labour party. Predictions of another 1.2 million public sector job losses over the next few years and further huge cuts in public spending make grim reading for the state of the economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21349593

This report is also a must read for everyone and further points out that economic collapse is inevitable.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33201.htm

[Viking Don]

BYW the Vid is NOT about a FIXED exponential, not sure what you mean by that, he used 7% to make it a bit easier for the simple minded to understand the 10 year doubling effect. 

[JamieM]

Talking about covering the Sahara Don, I've wondered, for years and years and years why no one, not no one as far as I've ever been able to see, has suggested we change the albedo of planet Earth. Earth getting too hot? Well paint the f***er white then! Simplistic I know, but reflecting incoming rays back into space is so bloody obvious it's untrue. It would take aeons to deliver of course, but lets say all cars should be white, roof tiles should be white and flat roofs should be painted with some white sealing compound. There's billions of things you could do with that basic idea. Even stupid ideas like dropping talcum powder all over the Saraha would have an impact. (Bit short term I know once the wind blows!) You could even reflect and focus loadsa sun rays to a point in space and use that scary amount of heat to generate electricity. A 'space ladder' type thing is perfectly feasible so transporting water up and power down ought to be conceivable.

BobG

Sorry Bob but this is one of the least effective and most expensive geoengineering techniques around. It has been estimated that altering global albedo would cost over $300bn a year. Also the fact that we cant alter the ocean surface (which accounts for 75% of the earths surface) and that the sunniest parts are areas of semi-permanent cloud mean that we could only yield 0.05% of the radiative cooling record to combat the increase in greenhouse gases.

It's a good read if you fancy it - http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf