1 1
wmw999

Reality Check #2

Recommended Posts

In 100 years:

  • gasoline will be a niche fuel
  • coal will be mostly an anachronism in the developed world
  • With solar and wind power supplementing the grid, it will be far more resistant to attacks and outages
  • Most appliances and energy-using equipment will be far more efficient than they are now
  • With population continuing increase, although not at as great a rate, we'll still be arguing over how much (x) is too much
  • Air quality will continue to improve in developed countries

And all of this will be a good thing, because there will have been lots of migrations of people who can't live in no-longer-sustainable places (e.g. Arizona) will be moving to sustainable places (e.g. Pennsylvania). Countries, as well as states.

I won't be around in 100 years, but I'll work towards all the stuff in the bulleted list to avoid the stuff that's likely to happen anyway.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

It may be more like 80 years.  Jesus is apparently back and is now living in Maui.  We saw him during a recent trip.  However he is (clearly) not on a throne in Jerusalem yet.

 

https://twitter.com/jesuscisme

 

jesus2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wmw999 said:
  • gasoline will be a niche fuel
  • coal will be mostly an anachronism in the developed world
  • With solar and wind power supplementing the grid, it will be far more resistant to attacks and outages
  • Most appliances and energy-using equipment will be far more efficient than they are now
  • With population continuing increase, although not at as great a rate, we'll still be arguing over how much (x) is too much
  • Air quality will continue to improve in developed countries

Agree wih most of that with a few comments.

Gasoline will be similar to diesel now - available many places, but not in high demand.  It will be very cheap due to the low demand.  Coal will see more use as a raw material than a fuel, which will solve 90% of the problems with its use.

Most of our energy will come from solar and wind, but the improvement in resilience will come from intelligence and storage.  Local storage, local generation, the ability to intentionally island and the ability to do accurate demand response will make the grid immune to most disasters and attacks.

The efficiency thing is an important one.  Traditionally energy use per person has been a sign of quality of life, but it's important to note that what we care about is the work done by every joule.  In the future, quality of life will improve while energy use per person decreases.  As a simple example, LED bulbs give more light, and far more heat, than incandescents - but use about 10% of the energy.

The population thing will be the big challenge.  We run into limits of growth quickly if the population keeps growing.  That's why Tostan and Camfed are two of the bigger charities I support - because they fund women's education. and that's the #1 way to reduce birthrate voluntarily.  (And also why many governments oppose it.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

Happy Easter Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

Hi Ron, and yes, have a reflective Good Friday, and a happy Easter.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

This is the same Jesus that promised he' return before all of his disciples died, right?

I recently came across the medieval myth that there was an immortal Jew wandering Europe and the Middle East, who was doomed to survive until Jesus came back. Interesting way of fitting the narrative to the facts.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing he'll be back before 2051 (or 'about' then).

 

If I still believed the tales, I'd likely be rationalizing his 'failure to appear' with something along the lines of:
He's sitting up there, watching and listening.
He sees how those who claim him as 'savior' behave. How they act and how they treat their fellow man.
I think he's given up on us and decided we aren't worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

In 100 years:

  • gasoline will be a niche fuel
  • coal will be mostly an anachronism in the developed world
  • With solar and wind power supplementing the grid, it will be far more resistant to attacks and outages
  • Most appliances and energy-using equipment will be far more efficient than they are now
  • With population continuing increase, although not at as great a rate, we'll still be arguing over how much (x) is too much
  • Air quality will continue to improve in developed countries

And all of this will be a good thing, because there will have been lots of migrations of people who can't live in no-longer-sustainable places (e.g. Arizona) will be moving to sustainable places (e.g. Pennsylvania). Countries, as well as states.

I won't be around in 100 years, but I'll work towards all the stuff in the bulleted list to avoid the stuff that's likely to happen anyway.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Re:  population continuing increase

Re:  all of this will be a good thing

I cannot agree with these two.  For me, any increase in the population of the world is a bad thing.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

Re:  population continuing increase

Re:  all of this will be a good thing

I cannot agree with these two.  For me, any increase in the population of the world is a bad thing.

Jerry Baumchen

I'd forgotten I put the population increase in the bulleted list. It's going to happen, but it will be at a reduced rate (the reduced rate is good). Note that most countries' economies are scaled for an ever-increasing population. That'll have to be reworked. In 50 years, when the baby boomers are pretty much all gone, this will be a different country in some ways.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

I agree with the above, for the most part. Concommitantly, I believe we will be about 50 years into the millennium with Jesus the Christ on the throne in Jerusalem.

I'm wondering if Ron is yanking their chain on this, as in; "If you believe that then you might believe this..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2022 at 10:51 AM, wmw999 said:

" ... With population continuing increase, although not at as great a rate, we'll still be arguing over how much (x) is too much ...

Wendy P."

I agree with everything Wendy said except for her 5th point.

Human birth rates are declining and populations will start declining around 2050.

Human birth rates have been declining since circa 1970. Once young women get enough education that they can earn dollars outside of the house, they also realize that modern medicine has reduced infant mortality rates to the point that most of their children will survive to adulthood. Ergo little need to birth more than 2 or 3 children.

First World birth rates have been below replacement rates (2.2 children per woman) for even longer. Second World birth rates have also been declining to below replacement rates. It is only a few Third World countries that still have high birth rates. See Nigeria which is the most populous country in Africa and projected to exceed the population of main land China by 2050. How Nigeria can feed that many mouths with a swampy Southern coast-line and an arid northern third is a mystery to me???????

Low birth rates force First World countries to accept thousands of immigrants per year to do lower-paying jobs. For example, British Columbia has to import hundreds of seasonal Mexican farm laborers (fruit-pickers) every summer because Canadian citizens do not want to work long days for minimum wage. 

Several first world countries are already experiencing serious labor shortages because of low birth rates. Main land China's "One Child Policy" may have solved a population problem, but it created other problems. Gender-specific abortions reduced the number of baby girls to the point that main land China now suffers from a shortage of brides ... conversely ... an excess of un-married young men. Un-married young men are far more likely to riot, etc.

OTOH low birth rates can drive global politics in unpleasant ways. Consider the current Russian problem of too few young men of military age. If you look back a century, a Russian boy born in 1920 had only a 20 percent chance of surviving World War 2 (ended in 1945). Many millions of those deaths were during battle, but huge numbers also died during the Russian Revolution, Ukrainian Civil War,, Stalin's Purges, Holomodor Famine, occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s, Chechin Wars, etc. Russia also suffered low birth rates during the confusing period after the Iron Curtain fell. Current Russian birth rates are hampered by age, alcoholism and abortions. Age problems are the results of a series of waves of birth rate slumps echoing back to the 1930s. With shortages of young men of marriageable age, few young Russian women want to raise families as single mothers. Alcoholism is caused by all the cheap vodka causing "brewer's droop" and shortening the lives of Russian men since Tzarist times. Finally, abortion is the only form of pre-natal care available to to millions of Russian women.

Mr. Poutine felt compelled to invade Ukraine this year, because he knew that if he waited another decade, he would not be able to field enough soldiers.

Russia is reluctant to admit immigrants who are visible minorities. This xenophobia is understandable given all the times that Russia has been invaded by: Austrians, British, French, Germans, Hungarians, Kyrgyrs, Lithuanians, Ottomans, Poles, Swedes, Sythians, Turks, Vikings, etc. Moscow suffers from too few natural lines of defense across the North European Plain. THE NEP extends from the Normandy Coast all the way to the Ural Mountains. 

I want to make it clear that I understand the paranoia that drives Mr. Poutine's current invasion of Ukraine, but Mr. Poutine's paranoid does not justify the current slaughter in Ukraine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 4/15/2022 at 2:08 PM, Bigfalls said:

If it gets too hot here in the USA, Canada better watch out.  Trump won't be around so somebody better start building a wall.

West to east is going to be more likely for most climate migration. Californians and such moving to New England and the mid-Atlantic because they are sick of mega drought, sucking forest fire smoke 24-7, and would like to actually have reliable water sources.

Edited by DougH
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DougH said:

West to east is going to be more likely for most climate migration. Californians and such moving to New England and the mid-Atlantic because their sick of mega drought, sucking forest fire smoke 24-7, and would like to actually have reliable water sources.

I hope they bring lots of $$$$ to help pay New York taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougH said:

West to east is going to be more likely for most climate migration. Californians and such moving to New England and the mid-Atlantic because they are sick of mega drought, sucking forest fire smoke 24-7, and would like to actually have reliable water sources.

Win win! I will make a profit on my house ;P. Who cares if that means I have to move, that’s not a problem unless it happens  

Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Win win! I will make a profit on my house ;P. Who cares if that means I have to move, that’s not a problem unless it happens  

Wendy P. 

I am in Western MA. I am hoping when I have the means, and RE tempers some, I can buy up a large plot of land for my kid. I have a feeling that 30 years from now the opportunity may be lost to get larger amounts of acreage. And in the meantime we might be able to set it up as the family camping spot and wood lot.

My hunch is that having that twenty acre plot of useable land purchased now is going to be like the people that bought in Cape Cod in the 60's and 70's which turned into very desirable properties by 2000's.

Edited by DougH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DougH said:

West to east is going to be more likely for most climate migration. Californians and such moving to New England and the mid-Atlantic because they are sick of mega drought, sucking forest fire smoke 24-7, and would like to actually have reliable water sources.

Large numbers of Californians have already moved to Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, etc. to escape high taxes.

We have seen a similar migration in British Columbia over the last 20 years. As house prices exceeded $1 million dollars in Vancouver, people started retiring to the Okanagan Valley. So many Vancouverites moved to the Okanagan Valley that house prices soared and are almost as expensive as Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougH said:

I am in Western MA. I am hoping when I have the means, and RE tempers some, I can buy up a large plot of land for my kid. I have a feeling that 30 years from now the opportunity may be lost to get larger amounts of acreage. And in the meantime we might be able to set it up as the family camping spot and wood lot.

My hunch is that having that twenty acre plot of useable land purchased now is going to be like the people that bought in Cape Cod in the 60's and 70's which turned into very desirable properties by 2000's.

Consider farm land that has a feature of interest. I picked up one 20 acre chunk 10 years ago that has appreciated 400% and it's not buildable---yet. Low tax rates and some income while you ride it out. I am always on the lookout for 10-30 acre bits somewhere in the path of an urban growth boundary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DougH said:

West to east is going to be more likely for most climate migration. Californians and such moving to New England and the mid-Atlantic because they are sick of mega drought, sucking forest fire smoke 24-7, and would like to actually have reliable water sources.

Been hearing about that for 20 years now.  Still waiting for the traffic to improve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1