

Biomass for energy might be both a sustainable and economical scenario. - ph0rque
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/12/15/turning.over.a.new.leaf.future.energy.supplies

======
gcheong
Is there anything such as true sustainability? If we assume the premise that
perpetual motion machines are not possible, and hence all energy sources are
eventually depleted, then what is the definition of sustainability in a
practical sense? Is it until our sun supernovas? Until we destroy ourselves
through war? Until we decide having children no longer suits our lifestyles? I
keep seeing this word put out as some achievable concept when nobody seems to
have defined it in any way that I can see that takes into account the ultimate
reality of physics and I have wonder if I've gone mad or if maybe I'm truly
missing something. I mean do people really think sustainability, in the sense
of a perpetual, clean, energy source is actually achievable or do most people
realize that ultimately it is impossible but use the term anyway as a mis-used
but simple and useful term rather than something like hyper-efficient or
something else?

~~~
jerf
As you say, yes, if you _really_ sit down and think about it, it's a tricky
concept.

My conclusion: It's all about the energy, and to a lesser extent, atoms. With
sufficient energy and the right atoms, we can make anything we may wish to
consume. With sufficient energy and technology we may even be able to fiddle
with atoms to some extent.

Therefore, "sustainable" technology is when we can survive on less energy than
we can bring in for the given time period, and on fewer atoms than we can
bring in for the given time.

We are taking both out of the Earth at a fantastic rate, which isn't as bad as
it sounds because the Earth (not to mention the universe) is freakin' huge and
awash in both energy and atoms in the general sense. (The Universe is young.)
What we run short on is two things: _cheap_ atoms and energy, and
_complicated_ atomic configurations, particularly "food". In the case of some
particular atoms, we can run out of those relatively soon (like palladium),
but those are generally substitutable to some acceptable extent with other
atoms and energy.

Our current issues with inefficient and dangerous atom extraction and
extraction of cheap energy from the Earth is an aberration, albeit a multi-
century one that is still going strong. Long-term, there are only two
solutions: To live with the meager resources that nature will provide us,
which is to say, to live like savages, or to develop a nanotechnology so
powerful that with the input of relatively small amounts of energy, a life
form can be sustained. There's a low solution and is almost certainly a high
solution; the middle solution (modern technology) is, as you intimate, _not_
long-term sustainable no matter what we do. It does not matter how much we
recycle or conserve or reuse, it doesn't matter if we drive Priuses or
Hummers, this can't last.

It _can_ , however, extend the time frame we have to develop high technology,
and given the various outcomes which I won't take the time to enumerate, it is
almost certainly a good idea, as long as it doesn't hurt research into high
technology. So even though what we currently call "sustainability" isn't, it
does directly contribute to eventual sustainability by extending the time
frame we have to develop it.

Personally, I think the only limit for nanotechnology is ultimate physical
limits, I see no great impediment remaining but time and effort. But I don't
think anything less than a technology that can sustain a high-tech
civilization truly indefinitely with only an energy input is truly
"sustainable".

I observe that if you look at the problem like this, a lot of things promoted
in the name of sustainability actually harm our prospects of such technology.

------
ph0rque
The gotcha:

> The authors do concede that new technologies will be required to convert the
> chemical energy stored in biomass to electrical energy more efficiently.

~~~
falsestprophet
Worse, this technology will create stronger incentives to pillage the
remaining natural forests.

