 | Energy For a Changing World: A Credible European Energy Strategy for the 21st Century | The Oil Drum | Whither The Bumpy Plateau? |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel.”
—Saudi saying
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I don't view it as unreasonable to have a "default" belief in progress, since empirically it has been what's happened in recent memory: My grandmother told stories about life from just before WWII, through the blitz and in to postwar deprivation. My mother had a better quality of life. My sister and I have had even better lives (so far). I'm an educated computer scientist/engineer, and I personally wouldn't bet against pulling a technological rabbit out of the hat. But until I see a multiply verified, production scale rabbit I'm planning for the possibility of a severe energy and resource crunch.
The two things I find most worrying is that (i) people in general won't entertain even the possibility that things may be heading for a crunch, and (ii) almost everyone these days regard it as more important to win an argument than figure out "the truth". Although it'd be disappointing for an engineer not to figure out theoretically that the fridge won't cool the containing room, the unforgivable thing would be to not go grab a thermometer to validate whether a claimed cooling of the room was occurring but just maintain one's argument about what must be happening.
The mistakes are in thinking that progress is inevitable and automatic, in thinking that progress is always a totally good thing (instead of it sometimes being a mixed bag), and in thinking that progress is a one way street, that regress is impossible. Most people operate assuming all three of these are true, but they are not.
This is the most astute observation I have seen on this site. Ever.
Read some thoughts on "progress" from Wendell Berry in this excellent essay about his work:
http://www.ovpes.org/2003/Collins.pdf
And here I thought it was just common sense... and common knowledge.
Crap. We *are* in trouble.
Cheers
Kurt Cobb's just written an article about that mindset - http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/. Quite a good read.
Where in the room would you hold that thermometer, and for how long would you take readings?
The reality of the situation would be very complex, but it was (presumably) supposed to be a simple demonstration to show how little people apply the basic notion of conservation of energy to the world around them - for example, a large steel and concrete structure being turned mostly to dust by it's own gravitational potential energy...
That's a little over the top, but I think you get the picture.
People generally think that cold and heat are substances that stoves and freezers make. They don't think of a unified theory of heat, not even on an intuitive level
I think I'll hold my thermometer up against the condenser tubes of the refrigerator. :-)
My comment was simply that although it's disappointing when people get arguments based on physics and maths wrong, it happens. I manage to confuse myself in the area in which I'm a highly educated expert every so often. The most fundamental thing is to actively investigate to see if you're right or wrong, and if you turn out to be wrong rethink things. That's what's good about all most of the stuff at the oil drum (ELM, etc): it's based on careful reasoning but people are looking for confirmation/disproof in real world numbers.
Me, if I had thought the refrigerator would cool the room, I'd go to the middle of the room with the thermometer and wait half an hour. If there was no noticeable effect on the temperature I'd be forced to rethink things. (Incidentally, I'm not a physicist but I think it's 2nd law of thermodynamics not conservation of energy that applies here.)
I agree, but my questions were rhetorical. As step back pointed out, you could hold the thermometer anywhere. My point was that the example should be thought of in less complex terms - it was just a simple illustrative example.
"(Incidentally, I'm not a physicist but I think it's 2nd law of thermodynamics not conservation of energy that applies here.)"
The 1st law of thermodynamics still applies to the 2nd law...
It's also the law of inefficient heat engines (Carnot engines) that applies.
The refrigerator is less than 100% efficient. On first look you might assume that the coolness it produces is balanced by the heat emitted from the condenser coils. But not so. The compressor produces additional heat. So do accessories in the refrigerator like lights, defroster mechanism, fans, etc. So the refrigerator is a net heat source, with or without its door being open. :-)