Wood stoves equipped with thermoelectric generators can produce electricity that is more sustainable, more reliable, and less costly than power from solar PV panels.
Found this on the lowtech magazine. What are your toughts?
Solar panels that don’t sustain some environmental damage tend to last 50 years or more (their power output degrades, but they still function and put out useful amounts of electricity). By the time most panels need to actually be fully replaced and recycled, I think we’ll have the facilities to do so.
But even if we somehow can’t, and every single solar panel is destined for landfill after 50 years (which is highly unlikely), they’d still be a far better option environmentally and climate wise compared to burning gas, coal, or wood at scale.
But even if we somehow can’t, and every single solar panel is destined for landfill after 50 years (which is highly unlikely), they’d still be a far better option environmentally and climate wise compared to burning gas, coal, or wood at scale.
While this it’s true it also reinforces the myth that we should, it’s still entirely unsustainable. Even 90% recycling still means massive amounts of new material is needed.
near zero energy use isn’t acceptable to the people causing all this.
“net zero energy use” isn’t a meaningful term. We can talk about net zero carbon as it is part of a cycle where carbon both has sources (burning fossil fuels, respiration of animals) and sinks (forests, oceans, wetlands, artificial carbon capture) so the two sides can balance to zero on net.
There is no “net” when it comes to energy usage, it is either used or it isn’t. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with using energy, in harnessing energy is what allows increases of standard of living fundamentally. We need to stop the negative externalities of certain types of energy generation (primarily fossil fuels).
Ehh, from what I can tell based on reading through the summaries he provides on the later episodes of that series, he appears to be advocating for Anarcho-primitivism, even going so far as to say cities, and even modern medical care and medicine are a part of ‘modernity’, and thus unsustainable. He is not far off from a doomer, but instead is spinning it as ‘letting go’ and mentally accepting that we’ll collapse into a more primitive state, which he sees as more in-line with positive ecological practices and ultimately a good thing. Some of his language even comes off a bit cult-y, IMHO.
I think there definitely needs to be severe economic degrowth, an end to capitalism, and a heavy focus on regenerating our natural environment and the species that live within it, but we absolutely do not need to have some mass die-off event to have a sustainable planet, we just have to stop the practices that are killing it.
Under the conditions that the Lowtech Magazine article is suggesting these thermoelectic generators would be useful, a steam engine/generator combo would perhaps be prohibitively expensive for an impoverished area to afford, except maybe through a group purchase where it becomes a central power supply for an entire village, but at that point they may as well instead do the solar microgrids, which would require a lot less time and effort to keep fueled, and probably cost less overall.
I think the other primitivism blog guy would be against the use of a fossil fuel powered anything. I’m not actually sure what level of technology he would be okay with.
Looking into their blog again just to be sure, it appears they think a return to, I guess medieval/bronze-age technology is ideal? Based on this quote:
Where might one look for meaning? The guideline is simple. If it requires non-renewable materials, modern forms of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear, electricity from any source), industrial processes, or purchase with money, then it’s probably best to treat it as being devoid of meaning.
I assume they would consider a steam engine as falling under industrial processes.
Solar panels that don’t sustain some environmental damage tend to last 50 years or more (their power output degrades, but they still function and put out useful amounts of electricity). By the time most panels need to actually be fully replaced and recycled, I think we’ll have the facilities to do so.
But even if we somehow can’t, and every single solar panel is destined for landfill after 50 years (which is highly unlikely), they’d still be a far better option environmentally and climate wise compared to burning gas, coal, or wood at scale.
While this it’s true it also reinforces the myth that we should, it’s still entirely unsustainable. Even 90% recycling still means massive amounts of new material is needed.
near zero energy use isn’t acceptable to the people causing all this.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/07/metastatic-modernity-launch/
“net zero energy use” isn’t a meaningful term. We can talk about net zero carbon as it is part of a cycle where carbon both has sources (burning fossil fuels, respiration of animals) and sinks (forests, oceans, wetlands, artificial carbon capture) so the two sides can balance to zero on net.
There is no “net” when it comes to energy usage, it is either used or it isn’t. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with using energy, in harnessing energy is what allows increases of standard of living fundamentally. We need to stop the negative externalities of certain types of energy generation (primarily fossil fuels).
Ehh, from what I can tell based on reading through the summaries he provides on the later episodes of that series, he appears to be advocating for Anarcho-primitivism, even going so far as to say cities, and even modern medical care and medicine are a part of ‘modernity’, and thus unsustainable. He is not far off from a doomer, but instead is spinning it as ‘letting go’ and mentally accepting that we’ll collapse into a more primitive state, which he sees as more in-line with positive ecological practices and ultimately a good thing. Some of his language even comes off a bit cult-y, IMHO.
I think there definitely needs to be severe economic degrowth, an end to capitalism, and a heavy focus on regenerating our natural environment and the species that live within it, but we absolutely do not need to have some mass die-off event to have a sustainable planet, we just have to stop the practices that are killing it.
If you want primitive, steam engine? Orders of magnitude efficient than thermoelectric generators.
Under the conditions that the Lowtech Magazine article is suggesting these thermoelectic generators would be useful, a steam engine/generator combo would perhaps be prohibitively expensive for an impoverished area to afford, except maybe through a group purchase where it becomes a central power supply for an entire village, but at that point they may as well instead do the solar microgrids, which would require a lot less time and effort to keep fueled, and probably cost less overall.
I think the other primitivism blog guy would be against the use of a fossil fuel powered anything. I’m not actually sure what level of technology he would be okay with.
My thinking was steam engines are 100s of years old technology.
Looking into their blog again just to be sure, it appears they think a return to, I guess medieval/bronze-age technology is ideal? Based on this quote:
I assume they would consider a steam engine as falling under industrial processes.
If that is the case you certainly don’t get thermoelectric generators
Definitely not :p
(just to clarify, the OP article from Lowtech Magazine about thermoelectric generators is in no way related to the Primitivism guy wanting no tech).