Biggest Problem Facing Humanity

[lajoswinkler]

You were talking about the problems with solar panels: Clouds, night time, etc. A dyson sphere wouldn't need to deal with those problems.

If we had the capability of building a sphere around Sun, I sincerely doubt we'd have problems with electricity.

[Ironwatsas]

All of Humanity's current problems will be rendered moot when the Asteroid shows up.

[magnemoe]

All of Humanity's current problems will be rendered moot when the Asteroid shows up.

Why so critical to an

?

[Devo]

What do you guys think is the single biggest problem facing humanity at the moment?

Miley Cyrus.

[drakesdoom]

Everything can be boiled down to greed, maybe with some hate on the side but mainly greed. Be it for power or resources greed drives nearly every real problem facing mankind today. You talk about the poor and the sick and the hungry? All of those things could easily be fixed if everyone cared more about each other than they do themselves. I have met some people who would help others but most that would have at one time have been hurt too many times too try anymore. On the other end I have met people who would pay any price in other people to gain the tiniest boon, sell mother into slavery for a nice car?

[Seret]

Solar panels, even if their efficiency climbs close to 100% will never be a solution because there are things like clouds, Earth's tilt and night. Solar electrical energy density is very low even on the equator.

It will be a backup source, but will never be a primary one.

We already use lots of solar power. We use its heat and light. Agriculture and hydroelectric power are derived from it. Every time you put out a pair of wet socks to dry in the sun, you use solar power. People take it for granted.

Well, almost all forms of energy are solar in origin if you look at it like that (wind, hydro, gas, coal, etc). Only tidal, nuclear and geothermal aren't (and you could make a case that nuclear, and therefore geothermal are too).

As you say, no one energy source will provide a complete solution. But that's fine, no one type of traditional generation provides a complete solution currently. A varied fuel mix in the grid is expected, and in fact would be prudent.

The question for a new power system isn't "Is it the answer to all our problems?", it's "Does it address the problem and provide energy in a useful form, at the right time and place, for the right price, and in a way that can be integrated into the existing grid without excessive disruption?". Direct solar power such as PV, solar thermal for heat and solar thermal for electricity all score well against those criteria, which is why they're being deployed very rapidly right now. Especially PV, which has really dropped in price and is being deployed in huge quantities.

[EuSouONumero345]

If most people were not stupid, we could eliminate almost all these problems.

[Seret]

If most people were not stupid, we could eliminate almost all these problems.

Most people aren't stupid. By definition the people you could call "stupid" are those that fall below (say) the 50th centile for intelligence. Since that's a relative measure, you'd have just as many stupid people even if the average IQ went up

[Nibb31]

Most people aren't stupid. By definition the people you could call "stupid" are those that fall below (say) the 50th centile for intelligence. Since that's a relative measure, you'd have just as many stupid people even if the average IQ went up

Below average != stupid

[Seret]

Below average != stupid

Got a better definition? I'm not married to the 50th centile btw, you could arguably set it at some other arbitrarily low point. IQ is an imperfect metric too. My point is that it's a relative term.

[EuSouONumero345]

It's is a relative term, but there is a difference between ignorant and stupid person: the ignorant person does not know, but she may be interested in the subject, we are all ignorant of something, after all, it is impossible to know everything, but dumb person does not know, does not want to learn and still wants others to believe she is right.

[The Darkness]

Read alot of good points from some passionate people. The great thing about this thread is we are brave enough to have this discussion.

My personal belief is that Poverty/Distribution of Wealth is a problem that contributes to many of the factors you have listed on your board above.

With the except of Climate Change. I consider Climate Change a "Force of Nature" or "Act of God". Though it too becomes a problem if we all can't agree how to face it.

Back to my point though. I can't speak for the rest of the world. But in the United States there is a division between the rich and the poor. I got to see this first hand when I worked for the Local Government of my state. It truly is about how much weight is in your wallet, not how much passion your heart hold. At that time I was "Head of Maintenance and Billing" for our Utility Department. I've met some of the nicest people you could ever meet, living in some of the harshest conditions people could ever face. And I learned that it Poverty is not a "Black Problem, White Problem, Yellow Problem, or Brown Problem" its a global problem that effects all race and walks of life. Now I could go into the politics of who's fault it is for poverty. But I've found those discussions only cause finger pointing and hate. I can say this though. We need to start working on this problem.

As it states in the "Good Book" - "A house divided will surely fall"

I believe those words to be true. Because when man has united we have carved channels through continents, moved mountains, rebuilt cities and put men on the moon. When we have stood against each other it has been at the greatest cost of human life.

This week as scientists Francois Englert and Peter Higgs received the Noble Prize in Physics for their work on the Higgs Boson Particle. It dawned on me. If two men could build and prove the theory of a particle that makes up much of the fabric of our entire universe. Why can't we all as a human race set aside our personal differences and work to common goals of improving humanity.

[tom1499]

Apple Inc.

[lajoswinkler]

Well, almost all forms of energy are solar in origin if you look at it like that (wind, hydro, gas, coal, etc). Only tidal, nuclear and geothermal aren't (and you could make a case that nuclear, and therefore geothermal are too).

As you say, no one energy source will provide a complete solution. But that's fine, no one type of traditional generation provides a complete solution currently. A varied fuel mix in the grid is expected, and in fact would be prudent.

The question for a new power system isn't "Is it the answer to all our problems?", it's "Does it address the problem and provide energy in a useful form, at the right time and place, for the right price, and in a way that can be integrated into the existing grid without excessive disruption?". Direct solar power such as PV, solar thermal for heat and solar thermal for electricity all score well against those criteria, which is why they're being deployed very rapidly right now. Especially PV, which has really dropped in price and is being deployed in huge quantities.

By solar in origin I meant immediately and renewable.

Tidal is powered by the Sun, as well as hydro and wind, but its useable power is pathetic. It's not even worth mentioning.

PV will never be used for grid basis. The best thing for it will be to serve as a top add-on for regions with great insolation. The base will remain coal, fission and hydro (where possible). Daily fluctuations can be leveled using wind and gas (though wind is a funny source because it needs a gas backup for every MWh produced, cause it's quite unreliable).

Today's PVs are just pathetic and when you combine that with very low energy density of insolation in highly insolated places, efforts of people living in average Western city are just a huge joke. Not long ago it took more energy to produce them than to expect them to yield in their lifetime.

They'll simply never become a remedy we need. We already use lots of solar power as I've said before. We just take it for granted.

Fission is the way to go, with recycling the waste and breeding new fuel. It's a plentiful source which will serve its purpose until we start with fusion, and fusion will happen "in few more decades" as we've been told for the past 50+ years.

[-Velocity-]

Below average != stupid

I agree, but maybe not for the same reason that you do. I know lots of otherwise not-so-bright people who actually make reasonably bright decisions simply because they KNOW they are not-so-bright, and they rely on the advice, wisdom and intelligence of others. This self-knowledge of their own fallibility actually makes them quite wise.

As I like to say,

The dumb man thinks himself smart. The smart man knows himself to be dumb.

The favorite words of the ignorant are "I know". It's the people who think themselves to be so clever that they do not need to listen or consider the ideas of others that are the major cause of human stupidity. You can have just about any IQ and fall into this category, as the only requirement is arrogance and overconfidence in your own abilities.

So, I think it's not necessarily how clever you are that matters, so much as how willing you are to admit your own fallibility, critically assess your own intellectual abilities, and consider the ideas of others. Sure, being smart HELPS, quite a lot in fact, but it is far from the whole picture, and you can be pretty wise without being very smart- just admit to yourself that you DON'T know everything, and listen to the advice and ideas of others.

Two things that are vital for a person who wishes to be wise-

1) Admit your own fallibility. If you think you're so much smarter than everyone else, it's only because you are too arrogant and stupid to realize your own failings.

2) Believe that which is supported by EVIDENCE, and not only what you WANT to believe. Most people believe what they want to believe, to hell with the facts (ahem... religion... ahem... politics...), but wisdom only comes if you put your own wants and desires out of the equation and try to look at a issue without bias. The world doesn't base itself on how you want it to work, it just is. If you actually want to understand it, remove your desires from the equation.

Edited October 10, 2013 by |Velocity|

[Seret]

Tidal is powered by the Sun, as well as hydro and wind, but its useable power is pathetic. It's not even worth mentioning.

Depends where you are, some places have immense tidal resource. The solar component of tidal is pretty minute, btw. Tidal does have the notable advantage of being metronomically predictable. That makes it suitable for base load, which means long predictable contracts. Investors like that kind of thing. Now that we're starting to get on top of the durability issues of tidal stream generators I think you'll start to see increasing numbers deployed. Barrages are great, but tidal stream is potentially much less disruptive, so more likely to be built.

PV will never be used for grid basis.

Do you mean base load? No it won't. Neither will lots of other things. PV does have certain distinct advantages, such as the fact that it naturally matches demand quite well (particularly in areas requiring air conditioning), the actual panels are extremely reliable, and it's now cheap enough for anyone to buy and install.

The base will remain coal, fission and hydro (where possible).

Coal is likely to become increasingly undesirable and/or uneconomic in many places with strong regulation. Overall it's the most destructive type of generation we have by far. If only it weren't so cheap!

Today's PVs are just pathetic

How so?

very low energy density of insolation in highly insolated places

Well, it's enough to run an entire planet, and everything that lives on it. If you need much more than that, you're doing it wrong.

[Beowolf]

Most of the proposed problems are threats to our civilization, but not really to our existence. I tend to worry about the planet becoming largely uninhabitable again, whether from asteroid strike, supervolcano, or a random radiation burst from space.

[SargeRho]

@Seret: Currently we use a fraction of the near infrared spectrum of light with Photovoltaic pannels. And only around 25% of that are converted into electric current. The rest is reflected and radiated as heat. Recently someone made a PV pannel that is 47-ish % efficient though, so we're making progress.

Fusion is likely to displace fission in the forseeable future, if it is commercially viable anyway. Oil will be replaced by natural gas. Coal is getting increasingly undesirable. Something about bad air quality.

[lajoswinkler]

Depends where you are, some places have immense tidal resource. The solar component of tidal is pretty minute, btw. Tidal does have the notable advantage of being metronomically predictable. That makes it suitable for base load, which means long predictable contracts. Investors like that kind of thing. Now that we're starting to get on top of the durability issues of tidal stream generators I think you'll start to see increasing numbers deployed. Barrages are great, but tidal stream is potentially much less disruptive, so more likely to be built.

Actually you're right about the source, I was thinking about hydro when I wrote that.

Not many places can utilize it, though. There are some areas where the difference is sufficient.

Do you mean base load? No it won't. Neither will lots of other things. PV does have certain distinct advantages, such as the fact that it naturally matches demand quite well (particularly in areas requiring air conditioning), the actual panels are extremely reliable, and it's now cheap enough for anyone to buy and install.

Yes, base load.

I don't agree about the price. They're extremely expensive and take a great deal of time before they pay off even in the Mediterranean countries, for example.

To use them in places like London would be close to a financial black hole. They're perfect when you have no connection to the grid, like if you have a small house by the lake in the middle of nowhere, but if you want a refrigerator and a TV and all other stuff, it won't work if you don't buy a lot of panels and batteries (which are so enviromentally friendly...).

The energy put into making a panel is just terrible, as well as pollution it produces during the manufacture. Per kWh, of course.

Coal is likely to become increasingly undesirable and/or uneconomic in many places with strong regulation. Overall it's the most destructive type of generation we have by far. If only it weren't so cheap!

I doubt it will become that undesireable while we're still alive. In the end, money makes the world go around.

How so?

When people talk about PVs, they use the latest breakthroughs. In real world, commercially available panels are much less efficient and not well made. They rarely reach their theoretical lifetime. Given the fact they're often installed in places without much insolation, cases where they actually produce enough energy to actually pay themselves off in the means of kWh are more often than we'd like to think.

Solar thermal power is a much better option and pays off in the terms of money and energy in few years in places with high insolation. PVs are always worse than solar thermal.

Well, it's enough to run an entire planet, and everything that lives on it. If you need much more than that, you're doing it wrong.

That's misleading. The fact it runs the biosphere doesn't mean it's suitable for humanity. We have much greater needs, and we need dense energy.

It would be similar to saying the Pacific ocean contains more thermal energy than the entire year comsumption of USA and Russia. It does, but the distribution is very high so the density is very low.

[Seret]

I don't agree about the price. They're extremely expensive and take a great deal of time before they pay off even in the Mediterranean countries, for example.

To use them in places like London would be close to a financial black hole.

As an owner of a PV system just outside of London, I couldn't disagree more Systems at this latitude will generate about 800kWh per kWp installed, which is plenty. Between the feed in tariff, export tariff and savings on import my system will pay for itself in under 8 years. The FIT runs for 25 years in the UK. So far from a financial black hole, it's a cash making machine. Granted, this is largely because of the distorting effect of the FIT, but the FIT has been responsible for a huge reduction in price. You can now get a system twice the size of mine for less money than what I paid 18 months ago. So the economics of it are now reaching the point where the FIT isn't required.

The energy put into making a panel is just terrible, as well as pollution it produces during the manufacture. Per kWh, of course.

Yep semiconductor fab is energy intensive, but both mono and poly will both produce over double what it costs to make them over their lifetime

I doubt it will become that undesireable while we're still alive. In the end, money makes the world go around.

Oh, the power companies would keep using them if they could, but they'll be squeezed out by regulation and punative imposed costs. Most of the big coal plants in the UK are switching to co-firing biomass in order to be allowed to stay open a bit longer.

In real world, commercially available panels are much less efficient and not well made. They rarely reach their theoretical lifetime.

See now I think you're just making stuff up. You're right that people often quote the efficiency of the latest experimental lab tech, but the panels themselves are in fact highly reliable. What does tend to need replacing in a PV array is the inverters, they last about 5-10 years. But the panels themselves are pretty bombproof. There is evidence of this from long-time users like CAT, who fitted 180 panels in 1997, and all are still working well. As a reliability engineer myself, having a 100% serviceability rate from 180 of anything after decades of constant use is extremely impressive. The guarantees on panels are generally 10 years or longer, which shows how confident manufacturers are of their longevity.

PVs are always worse than solar thermal.

Solar thermal is great, but it's inherently more complex and more maintenance intensive than PV, and doesn't always perform better. PV + resistive heating can actually produce more heat than solar thermal under certain conditions. The two do complement each other well though, for example a small PV panel is a great way to run the pumps for your solar thermal system.

That's misleading. The fact it runs the biosphere doesn't mean it's suitable for humanity. We have much greater needs, and we need dense energy.

It would be similar to saying the Pacific ocean contains more thermal energy than the entire year comsumption of USA and Russia. It does, but the distribution is very high so the density is very low.

Low energy density is no problem if you have a large collector. The sun itself has a very low energy density, but gets away with it because it's large. I don't actually think 1kW per square metre is too shabby anyway, even at 20-30% efficiency in the collector. My home uses less electricity in a year than the available solar energy that falls on it's roof, for example. If I put a bigger array up I could be net zero. That's not too shabby IMO.

[DisarmingBaton5]

NASA's lack of funding.

In all seriousness, war, disease, and hunger would be my top 3. (NOT in any order)

[lajoswinkler]

As an owner of a PV system just outside of London, I couldn't disagree more Systems at this latitude will generate about 800kWh per kWp installed, which is plenty. Between the feed in tariff, export tariff and savings on import my system will pay for itself in under 8 years. The FIT runs for 25 years in the UK. So far from a financial black hole, it's a cash making machine. Granted, this is largely because of the distorting effect of the FIT, but the FIT has been responsible for a huge reduction in price. You can now get a system twice the size of mine for less money than what I paid 18 months ago. So the economics of it are now reaching the point where the FIT isn't required.

The only reason it is economically viable in GB is because it's sponsored by the government. It is being supported because there are favorable parties that make huge money that way. Don't fool yourself thinking you're saving the environment or the economy. You're doing exactly the opposite.

Energy density of PV in London, with its moody weather is so pathetic it's laughable. London, clouds, rain, high latitude, come on.

It's all that matters, actually. While you're thinking about how good PV in northern Europe is, there are factories in China that make it possible, puking out incredible amounts of greenhouse gases and carcinogenic chemicals. There are whole regions so contaminated they represent dystopias from SF novels. But as long as it happens on the other side of the planet, it's ok...

Their lack of care is the first thing what makes the panels cheaper, and the second one is domestic governmental financial support. If GB was making its own PVs using environmentally friendly methods, their primary price would be huge, and if no government sponsorship was provided, citizens would not be able to afford them. Even now they're expensive, but with all the changes I've mentioned, they'd stay where they suit the best - space stations, buoys and calculators.

When I first saw traffic lights in my town getting PVs, I was facepalming so hard. Someone made a huge money on that while they really could've leave them use the electrical grid.

Anyway, talk to the people working in the energetics department, preferably someone without an agenda. I have with several of them and they all laughed when these things were mentioned. First they laugh, then they get serious and frustrated because they're sick of the "green" agenda that's gotten into the politics. Politicians are stupid and greedy. Make up a good story and offer money and you can do almost anything.

[Kryssandra]

Humanity's biggest problem is humanity itself. We always have been and always will be our own worst enemy.

[Daman453]

Ok, if you put 2 humans in a room with a weeks worth of food and water you will get them fighting within a day. It is human nature.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Daman453
Grammar

[Ralathon]

Ok, if you put 2 humans in a room with a weeks worth of food and water you will get them fighting within a day. It is human nature.

Yea, that's why the human species will never be able to cooperate and rise from their hunter-gatherer existence. Oh wait.

There is a reason that psychopaths are seen as weird and selfishness is frowned upon; humanity as a whole is actually pretty social and negotiable. Evolving in a tribal society tends to favor empathy.