Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2022, 12:54 PM   #11
Tom Mazanec
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

I was thinking temporarily drier, until ocean evaporation from slowly warming ocean catches up to evaporation from quickly warming land.
Tom Mazanec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 01:02 PM   #12
Prince Charon
 
Prince Charon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlKost View Post
We should indeed to head on and fast into nuclear. Anyone discussing "clean energies" that doesnt bring nuclear to the table is not being serious. If we had enough nuclear power plants to supply all the demand, we could drop oil altogheter in not too much time - there would still be a need for mass EVs to replace all vehicles we currently have, and the need to speed up production of bio-plastic that is far more energy consuming. And the EV batteries require several hard to come by components, including several rare earths. It's a massive transition, but doable - but dumb politicians must first stopping crusading against nuclear in exchange of russian and saudi bribes
The bribe money will dry up with the rest of their funds, the problem is that it may be too late by then. As for the rare earth metals, some or all of the ones we need may be less rare off Earth, it's just a question of whether we can get them to the factories cheaply enough (and if the factories are in space, whether we can operate them cheaply enough).
__________________
Warning, I have the Distractible and Imaginative quirks in real life.

"The more corrupt a government, the more it legislates."
-- Tacitus

Five Earths, All in a Row. Updated 12/17/2022: Apocrypha: Bridges out of Time, Part I has been posted.
Prince Charon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 01:15 PM   #13
Willy
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Well it would be a nightmare to live in this times, thatīsure.

First only a few developed nations have own sources for fuel in form of oil and natural gas, the whole biogas is just a scam, needing nearly as much energy as it produces and needs fertilizer.

Fertilizer is another problem there are only 3 big natural depots of phosphates. Dire needed to keep people fed. ammonia can be made given energy, phospates not.

Their are not many nations who can fed there own folks, and have enough land for agriculture and the needed climate. Most nations are well over their biolagical carrying capacity.

All this would result in a big migration wave which let look a locust swarm cute. You can expect the target nations act accordingly.

Also we will have a rising ocean level, the worlds biggest cities, most productive farmland, and industrial areas are in this regions, resulting in a heavy prodicutio loss in food and goods and many millions of refugees on top of this.

Theoretically we have all the tech and knowledge to compensate the lack of fuels, if everybody cooperates. Basically we would need a world gouvernment dealing with the situation and making binding decisions for all. But human nature isnīt like this.

Most developed nations have used the waterpower option to the fullest and or most dams are pretty ol and silted. Solar power and wind can make up for the loss of other energy sources, but canīt be stored in quantity,also most nations have a heating problem.

Nuclear power will be a last ditch try, but given that most nations donīt have resources and the needed tech level and construction time, itīs more likely we will have in less delopped nations some Fukushimas, while the modern nations can use them without problems, if they have enough own uran.

By the way rare earth and other highly valued resources arenīt so seldom most nations have resources of them, itīs just the standard producer was dirt cheap and therefore nobody developed his own mining and refining industry, same goes for silicium. Really important industry metall like iron, copper and alloy are fairly widespread.

We can expect a all against all warfare and skirmishes to get the last table scraps of the golden age. Most regions will be stripped clean of anything including the local fora and fauna, Remember a fisher using dynamite knows he will destroy his existence, but he will eat now, tomorrow is another day.

After the dust is settled the still standing nations, will sieve through the leftovers and build a new society. I will not set a dime for any existing nation how and if it can survive the situation.

Any nation who wantīs to survive has to have natural fuels, good and enough land to feed itīs people including the needed fertilizers, other natural resources, well trained cooperating citizens, and BIG natural borders or the locusts will devour them.

Last edited by Willy; 06-26-2022 at 01:25 PM. Reason: added text
Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 01:15 PM   #14
KarlKost
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brazil
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
I was thinking temporarily drier, until ocean evaporation from slowly warming ocean catches up to evaporation from quickly warming land.
The ocean takes centuries to follow up climate change, that much is true, but that's because of it's depth. The ocean doesnt warm or cool equally all over.

Surface evaporation would increase very fast as the surface of the oceans heat up relatively fast. It's the depts that would take centuries of warm in the surface to be felt.
KarlKost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 01:21 PM   #15
benz72
 
benz72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chagrin Falls
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Perhaps looking at it through a more localized (hyper-localized) lens might help. Don't think of The US, but rather Boulder, CO. Or think about Appalachia. Or perhaps the Mississippi delta. It isn't crazy to think that some form of regional stability could form in any of those (or many other) locations. Those nation states are MUCH smaller than the US, but any collection of them that has reached stability could feasibly begin working together to mutual benefit.
__________________
Benundefined
Life has a funny way of making sure you decide to leave the party just a few minutes too late to avoid trouble.
benz72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 01:43 PM   #16
KarlKost
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brazil
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Fertilizer is another problem there are only 3 big natural depots of phosphates. Dire needed to keep people fed.
We just need to dig deeper. And as pointed out, nitrogen can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but that would be heavy into energy, which is why we need nuclear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Their are not many nations who can fed there own folks, and have enough land for agriculture and the needed climate. Most nations are well over their biolagical carrying capacity.
With fertilizers that's not true. Without... Yeah. But that's not the case yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
All this would result in a big migration wave which let look a locust swarm cute. You can expect the target nations act accordingly.
The most affected areas would be China, Middle East and Africa. And they dont have many places they can migrate into. What would happen is that in those places they would all kill each other and resort to cannibalism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Also we will have a rising ocean level, the worlds biggest cities, most productive farmland, and industrial areas are in this regions, resulting in a heavy prodicutio loss in food and goods and many millions of refugees on top of this.
Nah, that's a lot of midiatic exaggeration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Theoretically we have all the tech and knowledge to compensate the lack of fuels, if everybody cooperates. Basically we would need a world gouvernment dealing with the situation and making binding decisions for all. But human nature isnīt like this.
I rather NOT having the Big Brother world government running over my life. If you're willing to give up your freedom for the sake of FALSE safety, Im not.

Besides, governments cant fix any problems, governments ARE THE PROBLEM.

You shouldnt be so eager to surrender full control to a bunch of "enlightned" angels sent by heaven to rule over us poor mortals with iron fist. Such a "world government" would simply be an eternal 1984 tyranny.

I find it funny how the same people that dont trust politicians and bureocrats expect that the almighty Government solve their problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Most developed nations have used the waterpower option to the fullest and or most dams are pretty ol and silted. Solar power and wind can make up for the loss of other energy sources, but canīt be stored in quantity,also most nations have a heating problem.
Solar and wind is just pure populist demagogery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
We can expect a all against all warfare and skirmishes to get the last table scraps of the golden age.

After the dust is settled the still standing nations, will sieve through the leftovers and build a new society. I will not set a dime for any existing nation how and if it can survive the situation.
No one modern nation can survive the total collapse. Modern economies and our technologies are too complex to survive without several vital cogs to the mechanism - for example, we need MILLIONS of highly skilled experts to keep things running, and for that we need a massive surplus - we cant have 90% of the population at the farms to keep a TL9 society.

And the more advanced we become, the more complex the system is, thus the more susceptible to disturbances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy View Post
Any nation who wantīs to survive has to have natural fuels, good and enough land to feed itīs people including the needed fertilizers, othe natural resources, well trained cooperating citizens, and BIG natural borders or the locusts will devour them.
The ONLY nation that I see fully capable to survive on its own is the US, in a symbiotic relation with Mexico. Those 2 will thrive.

China and Russia wont survive past 2030 - and that's if nothing else happens (but just you wait until next year)
KarlKost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 02:27 PM   #17
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

While I'm not anti-nuclear, at the moment it's a lot cheaper to build extra wind or solar than to build extra nuclear, and for things like nitrogen fixing, without fossil fuels, it's almost certainly cheaper to just use a crop rotation that will do the fixation for you.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 02:38 PM   #18
Willy
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlKost View Post
We just need to dig deeper. And as pointed out, nitrogen can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but that would be heavy into energy, which is why we need nuclear.


With fertilizers that's not true. Without... Yeah. But that's not the case yet.


The most affected areas would be China, Middle East and Africa. And they dont have many places they can migrate into. What would happen is that in those places they would all kill each other and resort to cannibalism.
SNIP
First wrong chemical symbol not N but P, phospates are said reportingly to be at peak production around 2030 and from than dropping, estimated duration at actual production max a hundret years. Phsphates are now a relative small part of fertilizer, but even now the make for the biggest part of the costs. Given rising world population and some new founds in resources this calculation is still standing. AND most natural resources of phosphates are poluted by heavy metals and other obnoxious substances. Without them you can pour as much fertilizer you want on the plants, it wouldnīt help much, just ask a farmer.

So we will have a problem with feeding the world population. Not to mention you have to transport either food or fertilizer from A to B.

Sorry again whole south america including mexico would be on the way to US /Canada because they would still be able to fed their population, and thanks to natural oil and gas can transport the food to them.

You forgot just south america and india in you calculations. not many nations are actually able to fed their people, without heavy imports. India and china alone have over 2 billion people, thankfully far away from my living place. Africa and middle east will still be a problem for central europe.

I could literally drown you in facts about the situation, but want to avoid a political discussion. Just let me say, research of potential crisis point in the world political, or naturally is a hobby of mine for at least a quarter of a century. Sadly Iīm much more often right than wrong. Alone the whole distribution of resources and why some deposits are just that and not resources would be too much for this forum.

Let us for the sake of a fruitful discussion about a scenario for GURPS take the warnings of The Limits of Growth and the following studies by Meadows and Randall as a given fact.

Last edited by Willy; 06-26-2022 at 02:44 PM. Reason: added text
Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 02:46 PM   #19
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
Recoverable fissile and fossil fuels are depleted to insignificance (but other metals can be scavenged from the infrastructure).
Never do that in a setting you want people to take halfway seriously. Even when it's plausible resource depletion never takes an ubiquitous resource like these to zero, what it does is drive up the cost to the point most of the uses are unaffordable - but if there is something important enough people would spend vastly more on it than they do now to have it, they still can.

Not to mention that using up enough coal to take the [proven] reserve (i.e. exploitable even at current prices) zero would multiply the amount of atmospheric CO2 enough to increase the temperature by about 20C. That's beyond catastrophic. Using up the not-yet-proven and known-but-higher-cost reserves too presumably sterilizes the planet.

Quote:
Climate is much warmer and, until the oceans catch up and can start evaporating water in equilibrium, drier.
Evaporation goes to equilibrium almost instantly. I suppose there's notionally a bit of delay as heat energy works down the water column, which might matter a bit for when the methane clathrates melt and kick you over to that lethal greenhouse, but for evaporation everything happens at shallower depths than the mixing layer thickness anyway. It easily changes through the course of annual temperature changes after all.

Quote:
The internet I suppose is gone, but could shortwave radio be maintained, probably using crystal radios and hydroelectric powered broadcasting, for example?
Any thoughts?
I wouldn't actually be amazed if some internet was still around. Radio absolutely is. The highest licenced transmitter power in the US is 50 kW, of which there are apparently 1 AM and 3 FM stations that bother to go that high. My handheld peaks at about 5 watts and will hit a repeater 30 miles away pretty reliably. For that matter Voyager 1 has a 23 watt transmitter and with the right antenna you can hear it from out past Neptune... Radio is just not a high power application. There are lots of radio applications where the speaker on your receiver burns more power than the transmitter did to send you the signal. $20,000 will buy you a commerical generator that could keep any commercial station the air for 100 gallons of (bio)diesel, or a similar amount of fuel alcohol, a day, which is frankly a negligible investment for anything organized enough to call itself even a fairly local government.

No communications technologies are significant energy consumers really, the stuff that gets hit by a high energy costs are transportation (particularly air and automobile uses), space heating (and to a more limited extent cooling) and water heating. Even industrial machinery and process heat are better off, being smaller draws (well OK, maybe [comparable] draws to water heating) and producing enough added value to pay higher prices more easily.
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2022, 03:04 PM   #20
sjard
Stick in the Mud
 
sjard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rural Utah
Default Re: Deindustrialized World3 22nd Century

<Moderator>
A reminder to keep things civil, and to keep anything bordering on real world politics off these boards.
Thank you.
</Moderator>
__________________
MIB #1457
sjard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.