What do you think?
Rate this book
Low-Tech Magazine 2012-2018
Low-tech Magazine underscores the potential of past and often forgotten technologies and how they can inform sustainable energy practices. Sometimes, past technologies can be copied without any changes. More often, interesting possibilities arise when older technology is combined with new knowledge and new materials, or when past concepts and traditional knowledge are applied to modern technology. Inspiration is also to be found in the so-called "developing" world, where resource constraints often lead to inventive, low-tech solutions. Contains 159 images.
- GenresNonfictionTechnology
774 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 7, 2019
20 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 5, 2024
My review of Volume 1 is applicable to Volume 2, with some additional comments. That review can be found here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Most of the articles are informative and relevant to the predicament of peak oil and other factors of diminishing returns of complex societies, for which the global corporate techno-industrial society is not exempt.
But some articles are too optimistic, evoking wishful thinking. For instance, the article How (Not) To Run A Society On Solar And Wind Power Alone begins with, "While the potential of wind and solar energy is more than sufficient to supply the electricity demand of industrial societies..." That's patently false on many grounds.
First, electricity accounts for only about 20% of all energy consumption. Second, renewable energy comprises only a small fraction of all electricity generation. To generate even the majority of that 20% of all energy, electricity, would require installing solar panels the size of Spain. That is an incredible amount of environmental destruction, in mining, processing, manufacturing, installation, and shipping every step of the way.
And that's only of demand doesn't rise, which of course it is. See Jevons paradox.
It is also doesn't solve intermittency, storage, or transmission of electricity.
Or how about the fossil fuels that are required to mine, process, manufacture, and ship?
All of that for 30 years of electricity, only for the panels to be decommissioned and replaced.
So-called renewable energy is not renewable. It is a product of industrialism, but it cannot power industrial civilization. At best, they can provide a parachute during degrowth. I'm not particularly hopeful that they will be used that way.
The article Could We Run Modern Society On Human Power Alone is not about the ways human muscle power can generate mechanical energy, but how to turn us into exercising electricity generators. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode 15 Million Credits. Black Mirror, of course, was warning us of potential dystopias to avoid.
The article also counts on a growing human population and does not acknowledge that overpopulation is part of the problem. A simple perspective is the I=PAT formula, where Impact is a function of Population times Affluence times Technology.
Occasionally an article will suffer carbon tunnel vision, as of that's the only independent problem.
Finally, the article on velomobiles was fascinating, but I'm not a fan of electric assist or ebikes. On average, they cost about four times more than unassisted. The embodied energy must be much higher for the motor and battery, but I don't have quantities available. The operation costs are higher, too, as now the technology becomes dependent upon electricity to manifest its full potential. Lastly, I have to doubt its supposed benefits; how many people are giving up cars for ebikes (stepping down) versus giving up bikes for ebikes (stepping up)?
In a word, ebikes are greenwashing. They might be useful for a time, but long after peak oil our descendants will wonder why we squandered remaining energy on such a wasteful, short-lived technology.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Most of the articles are informative and relevant to the predicament of peak oil and other factors of diminishing returns of complex societies, for which the global corporate techno-industrial society is not exempt.
But some articles are too optimistic, evoking wishful thinking. For instance, the article How (Not) To Run A Society On Solar And Wind Power Alone begins with, "While the potential of wind and solar energy is more than sufficient to supply the electricity demand of industrial societies..." That's patently false on many grounds.
First, electricity accounts for only about 20% of all energy consumption. Second, renewable energy comprises only a small fraction of all electricity generation. To generate even the majority of that 20% of all energy, electricity, would require installing solar panels the size of Spain. That is an incredible amount of environmental destruction, in mining, processing, manufacturing, installation, and shipping every step of the way.
And that's only of demand doesn't rise, which of course it is. See Jevons paradox.
It is also doesn't solve intermittency, storage, or transmission of electricity.
Or how about the fossil fuels that are required to mine, process, manufacture, and ship?
All of that for 30 years of electricity, only for the panels to be decommissioned and replaced.
So-called renewable energy is not renewable. It is a product of industrialism, but it cannot power industrial civilization. At best, they can provide a parachute during degrowth. I'm not particularly hopeful that they will be used that way.
The article Could We Run Modern Society On Human Power Alone is not about the ways human muscle power can generate mechanical energy, but how to turn us into exercising electricity generators. It reminds me of the Black Mirror episode 15 Million Credits. Black Mirror, of course, was warning us of potential dystopias to avoid.
The article also counts on a growing human population and does not acknowledge that overpopulation is part of the problem. A simple perspective is the I=PAT formula, where Impact is a function of Population times Affluence times Technology.
Occasionally an article will suffer carbon tunnel vision, as of that's the only independent problem.
Finally, the article on velomobiles was fascinating, but I'm not a fan of electric assist or ebikes. On average, they cost about four times more than unassisted. The embodied energy must be much higher for the motor and battery, but I don't have quantities available. The operation costs are higher, too, as now the technology becomes dependent upon electricity to manifest its full potential. Lastly, I have to doubt its supposed benefits; how many people are giving up cars for ebikes (stepping down) versus giving up bikes for ebikes (stepping up)?
In a word, ebikes are greenwashing. They might be useful for a time, but long after peak oil our descendants will wonder why we squandered remaining energy on such a wasteful, short-lived technology.
November 8, 2020
One of my favourite websites has made one of my favourite books. Go figure.
A great collection of articles from the website that made my dumb brain feel a bit more hopeful about backtracking into older technologies. Man I'd love to take Kris out for a beer, made with solar power in a glass made of wood whilst riding cargo bikes of course.
A great collection of articles from the website that made my dumb brain feel a bit more hopeful about backtracking into older technologies. Man I'd love to take Kris out for a beer, made with solar power in a glass made of wood whilst riding cargo bikes of course.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews