PDA

View Full Version : Hydrogen economy looks out of reach


Jack Dingler
October 9th 04, 07:01 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
Published online: 07 October 2004
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Mark Peplow
US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand
so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to
cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.

So concludes a British economist, whose calculation is intended to highlight
the difficulties of achieving a truly green hydrogen economy.

"This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem
we face," says Andrew Oswald, an economist from the University of Warwick.

The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

Most hydrogen is currently made from methane, in a process that releases
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Splitting water molecules with
electricity generates hydrogen - but the electricity is likely to have been
generated from fossil fuels.

Although this may shift urban pollution to out-of-town electricity plants,
it makes little difference to greenhouse-gas output. "Today, hydrogen is not
a clean, green fuel," says Oswald's brother Jim, an energy consultant who
assisted with the calculation. "You've got to ask: where did the hydrogen
come from?"

The only technology that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen
without using fossil fuels relies on renewable power sources or nuclear
energy, the Oswalds argue. Hydrogen will only mitigate global warming when a
clean source of the gas becomes available, they say.

Unpopular options

The duo considered the United Kingdom and the United States. Transport
accounts for about one third of each country's energy consumption.

UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy as the United States, but
there is less land available: the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind
turbines, enough to occupy an area greater than Wales.

It unlikely that enough turbines could ever be built, says Jim Oswald. On
the other hand, public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians.
"I suspect we will do nothing, because all the options are so unpopular."

"I don't think we'll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is
extremely bleak," he adds. The brothers outline their calculation in the
current issue of Accountancy magazine.

"Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect," agrees Paul Ekins, an energy
economist at the Policy Studies Institute, London. "There will have to be a
few fundamental breakthroughs in technology first," he says.

Politicians eager to promote their green credentials, yet unaware of the
realities, have oversold the hydrogen dream, says Ekins. "I'm amazed by the
number of politicians who think you can dig hydrogen out of the ground," he
says.

However, he thinks that the Oswalds are too pessimistic about the
possibilities of new technology. "An enormous amount of attention is being
paid to generating hydrogen cleanly," he says.

If we could trap the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels underground, we
could convert them to hydrogen, says Ekins. "It's not tried and tested, but
it's a possibility." And it could become a reality by the time we have
enough hydrogen-powered cars to make it necessary, he says.

So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? "We
could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very likely," Jim Oswald
says ruefully.

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group

John David Galt
October 10th 04, 09:44 AM
Jack Dingler wrote:
> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

If you're going to troll us with these scams, at least come up with some
new material every year or two. The "hydrogen economy" was debunked long
ago.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
October 10th 04, 03:59 PM
John David Galt > wrote in message >...
> Jack Dingler wrote:
> > The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
> > which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
> > warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>
> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
> one.

That's what the guy said, you dimwit. You didn't read the whole post.

Jym Dyer
October 11th 04, 12:17 AM
>> "We could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very
>> likely ...."
> Nevertheless, that's the answer.

=v= Yep.

> Go to smaller cars and lower speeds like america did in the
> 70s save gas and 10,000 lives a year in america as a bonus.

=v= The gas savings was, alas, temporary. Basically, when the
price of gas came back down (though heavily-subsidized as
always, of course), people drove their fuel-efficient cars more
and farther. This ate up the gas savings, and even worse, took
some of the bite out of sprawl.

=v= So now the U.S. is covered with suburban sprawl that puts
many people hours away from their daily destinations, and so
they want luxury to spend those hours in, I guess. Meaning
bloated gas-guzzlers, and even though gas prices are low
(in constant dollars) they squeal about how "high" they are
because they're consuming so much of it.

=v= And the rest of us get to subsidize their equally-bloated
sense of entitlement.
<_Jym_>

John David Galt
October 11th 04, 01:00 AM
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...

Is anyone still working on developing fusion? ISTR that it was "10 years away"
in the '70s when it could be funded out of the cold-war defense budget; but now
that the Cold War is over and "Cold Fusion" has been proven to be nonsense, I
doubt if anyone is even working on the idea any longer.

Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction, and indeed I expect to see
Pournelle's solar power satellites long before we see fusion, if we ever do.

Mitch Haley
October 11th 04, 02:57 AM
John David Galt wrote:
>
> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
> one.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=750

AZGuy
October 11th 04, 06:37 AM
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>
>Is anyone still working on developing fusion? ISTR that it was "10 years away"
>in the '70s when it could be funded out of the cold-war defense budget; but now
>that the Cold War is over and "Cold Fusion" has been proven to be nonsense, I
>doubt if anyone is even working on the idea any longer.
>
>Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction, and indeed I expect to see
>Pournelle's solar power satellites long before we see fusion, if we ever do.


More accurately, CONTROLLED fusion is still not evolved into a
workable system. Fusion itself is easy enough to achieve.....
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Jack Dingler
October 11th 04, 06:41 PM
Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>>
>>>
>>Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>>
>>
>
>Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
>

Here's a chart showing the known and calculated peak oil dates for
various countries and regions.

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/WORLD_SUMMARY_html.htm

Jack Dingler

John David Galt
October 11th 04, 10:49 PM
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>
>>Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>
>
> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.

There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

Jack Dingler
October 11th 04, 11:19 PM
John David Galt wrote:

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone still working on developing fusion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
>
> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


How many millions of barrels a day do you think the US can produce?

Jack Dingler

Mike DeMicco
October 11th 04, 11:28 PM
In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:

> >
> > Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
> > fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>
> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

No,

1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
fossil fuels, and

2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

--
Mike DeMicco >
(Remove the REMOVE_THIS from my email address to reply.)

223rem
October 12th 04, 12:40 AM
John David Galt wrote:
> Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction,

LMAO. Are you working your way through the science fiction from
the thrities or something?

Jack May
October 13th 04, 04:38 AM
"Mike DeMicco" > wrote in message
...

> No,
>
> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
> fossil fuels, and
>
> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the CO2
from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow. It is
claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere.

If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several options being
developed that also have the potential to replace fossil fuel.

One estimate is that when we create a practical fusion system, there is
enough fuel on earth to last about twice the time until the Earth is burned
up in the death process of the sun.

Jym Dyer
October 13th 04, 07:52 PM
> Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants
> convert the CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and
> oxygen when they grow. It is claimed to be a closed cycle
> so that there is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

=v= What's generally left out of this claim is the length of
time CO2 spends in the atmosphere. Also kept vague is just
how much of our energy demand (or even actual needs) can
be handled with biomass, and thus how much supposed carbon
neutrality can help. I want to see numbers, not just vague
back-of-envelope scenarios.

=v= I'm certainly glad biomass lends a hand, and even gladder
that we've finally figured out how to make a biomass fuel
(biodiesel) that actually produces more energy than it takes
to be produced. Yet all I'm seeing it used for is idiotic
pilot projects such as biodiesel fuel cell "green" Hummers.

=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
a better use of time.

> If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
> options being developed that also have the potential to
> replace fossil fuel.

=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
<_Jym_>

Jack Dingler
October 13th 04, 09:12 PM
Jym Dyer wrote:

><snip>
>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>a better use of time.
>
>
>
>>If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
>>options being developed that also have the potential to
>>replace fossil fuel.
>>
>>
>
>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
> <_Jym_>
>

The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
decades. What has changed is the argued trigger point for when alternate
fuels will save us.

It's been argued that these alternatives will kick in when the price of
crude reaches...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
$55/barrel
......

And we've also heard it argued that some other guy, not us, is about to
invent a technology that will fix everything. Yet we never hear who he
is or have a clue what that technology will be.

And as we've waited the price of oil has risen through...
$15/barrel
$20/barrel
$25/barrel
$30/barrel
$35/barrel
$40/barrel
$45/barrel
$50/barrel
......

And still we wait for the future to come and fix the problems of the
past. Because now it's a bit late. How much longer do we do nothing
while waiting for a miracle of faith to occur?

Jack Dingler

Matthew Russotto
October 13th 04, 09:28 PM
In article >,
Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>a better use of time.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If biofuels can't replace all fossil fuels, there are several
>>>options being developed that also have the potential to
>>>replace fossil fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>> <_Jym_>
>>
>
>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>decades.

And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.

Jack Dingler
October 13th 04, 09:45 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article >,
>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><snip>
>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>a better use of time.
>>>
>>>
>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>> <_Jym_>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>decades.
>>
>>
>
>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>

You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
we know it, actually changed?

I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.

At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives? Or
do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
rising costs, while wages remain constant?

Or what scenario do you think is playing out?

Jack Dingler

John David Galt
October 13th 04, 10:48 PM
>>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.

>> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

> No,
>
> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
> fossil fuels, and

Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
(for example) would cure that problem too.

> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.

It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is, human
activities are probably not to blame.
http://www.sepp.org/statment.html

But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
undo.
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Save these clues! Collect the whole set!

Jack Dingler
October 13th 04, 11:53 PM
The world's biggest oil companies are failing to get value for money
when they explore for new reserves, according to research by Wood
Mackenzie, the energy consultant.

The report shows the commercial value of oil and gas discovered over the
past three years by the 10 largest listed energy groups is running well
below the amount they have spent on exploration.

<snip>

Wood Mackenzie says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with
a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years
show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls.

http://nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT20041010_7135_200375.html

Jack Dingler

Mike DeMicco
October 14th 04, 04:50 AM
"Jack May" > wrote in
news:fr1bd.236229$D%[email protected]_s51:

> Bio fuels are claimed to be carbon neutral because plants convert the
> CO2 from their combustion back into carbon and oxygen when they grow.
> It is claimed to be a closed cycle so that there is no net increase
> in CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants can
not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
the current problem we're having with global warming.

--
Mike DeMicco >

John David Galt
October 14th 04, 08:27 AM
>>> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged
>>> for decades.

>> And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>> without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.

> You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
> world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
> we know it, actually changed?

We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.

And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.

Jack Dingler
October 14th 04, 11:08 AM
John David Galt wrote:

>>>> Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
>>>> fuels run out before there is a good alternative.
>>>
>
>>> There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.
>>
>
>> No,
>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
>> fossil fuels, and
>
>
> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
> (for example) would cure that problem too.


We've just had five years where for various reasons we've produced less
food than we've consumed.

The low prices are mostly a commercial and political construct. The
entities that buy these products in bulk don't want to pay the higher
prices.

If we did switch to biofuels, there's no reason to expect that the
farmers will see higher prices paid for their crops.

Another last issue is that the crops best suited for biofuels, require
heavy use of fertilizers. Because Natural Gas in North America is
getting scarcer and may essentially run out at the end of the decade,
fertilizer plants all over the US are shutting down. Saudi Arabia may
become one of the world's primary sources of fertilizer and they
probably won't sell it cheap. The higher costs of fossil fuel
fertilizers used to grow biofuels in the future will likely simply drive
up food and fuel prices.

I think biofuels will be produced but will be sold at such a high price
that only the wealthy will be able to buy any of it.


>> 2. they cause just as much global warming and air pollution.
>
>
> It isn't proven that global warming is even happening, and if it is,
> human
> activities are probably not to blame.
> http://www.sepp.org/statment.html
>
> But even if all those scientists are wrong, global warming is trivial to
> undo.
> http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml
>
> Save these clues! Collect the whole set!


Yes, but don't go past the year 1992 and don't look anywhere else for clues.

Couldn't you have found an older article? I'm sure there's stuff from
the 1970s, you could've referenced.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
October 14th 04, 11:10 AM
John David Galt wrote:

>>>> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
>>>> unchanged for decades.
>>>
>
>>> And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>> without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>>
>
>> You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>> world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world
>> as we know it, actually changed?
>
>
> We've been "20 years from no more oil" since 1870.


That's complete BS John. You just made that up.

> And air and water quality are BETTER today than in the '60s. The only
> things in life that have not improved are government-provided services.


That depends on where you take the measurements and what you measure.
But you just proved Matthew wrong rather than prove him right. He says
the world doesn't change. You just argued it does.

Jack Dingler

fbloogyudsr
October 14th 04, 04:17 PM
"John David Galt" > wrote
>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally replace
>> fossil fuels, and
>
> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
> (for example) would cure that problem too.

One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
cost-effective to me.

Floyd

Matthew Russotto
October 14th 04, 07:30 PM
In article >,
Jack Dingler > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>>a better use of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>>> <_Jym_>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>>decades.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>>
>
>You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
>we know it, actually changed?

Straw men all.

>I see it as the frog in the pot syndrome, you slowly turn up the heat
>and the frog dies without ever realizing it's being cooked.
>
>At what price for crude would you argue, will kick in alternatives?

Damned if I know.

>Or do you think that oil production will keep rising through 2060 with ever
>rising costs, while wages remain constant?

That's a possibility too, if alternatives remain more expensive than
that. It's also a possibility that costs will drop.

Jym Dyer
October 14th 04, 08:16 PM
>> Aside from Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real
>> numbers. It's been 30 years; let's see something other than
>> vague scenarios.
> The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially
> unchanged for decades.

=v= I've made no such argument. A Google Groups search will
reveal that I've written much about the need to make changes
to transportation infrastructure rather than relying on some
"magic bullet" technology that only seems to ever exist as
an unverifiable prototype or is perpetually "one breakthough
away" from being of practical use.

=v= Don't get me wrong, I'm all into technological innovation.
I just don't think it ought to be used to perpetuate wasteful
and pointless endeavors. A solution to impending oil shortages
should be keeping people in hospitals alive, not helping people
drive their SUVs half a mile to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

=v= New technologies also tend to be expensive, affordable only
to an elite. Fixing the infrastructure, on the other hand, is
action that can be taken right now, and is much less expensive
in the long run.
<_Jym_>

Jack Dingler
October 14th 04, 08:38 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article >,
>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>=v= Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic would actually be
>>>>>a better use of time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>=v= I've been hearing vague promises about these "several
>>>>>options" ever since the Energy Crisis in the 1970s. Aside from
>>>>>Amory Lovins, few have bothered to work out real numbers. It's
>>>>>been 30 years; let's see something other than vague scenarios.
>>>>> <_Jym_>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The arguments for doing nothing, have remained essentially unchanged for
>>>>decades.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And each time the predicted End of The World As We Know It passes
>>>without neither a bang nor a whimper, they're strengthened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You've seen no change in the world over the last few decades? Is the
>>world of the 1960s still with us intact and whole? Or has the world as
>>we know it, actually changed?
>>
>>
>
>Straw men all.
>
>

Your argument is a strawman?

The world has gone through many, many End Of the World as We know It
events. Some where predicted, some weren't. Or are you saying such
things never happened? Would it be safe to say that you are arguing that
the Civil War, WW1, WWII and the Great Depression did nothing to change
the world for Americans? That through those events, nothing changed?

Or are you arguing something else altogether and just being very vague?

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
October 14th 04, 08:48 PM
fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "John David Galt" > wrote
>
>>> 1. biofuels can not be produced in enough quantity to totally
>>> replace fossil fuels, and
>>
>>
>> Sure they can. There are farmers going broke all over the US Midwest
>> because prices for their products are so low. Growing grain for alcohol
>> (for example) would cure that problem too.
>
>
> One of the myriad reasons that farmers are going broke is that
> diesel fuel and fertilizer (which is made using oil) prices have gone up.
> I've seen claims that a gallon of bio-diesel takes anywhere from about
> 0.5 gallon to 1.25 gallon of crude oil to produce. Doesn't seem very
> cost-effective to me.
>
> Floyd


You're close. fertilizer is currently made from natural gas. Something
that North America will be running low on in just a few years. There's
no technical reason why it can't be made from oil, it's simply more
efficient (cheaper) to make it from natural gas.

Soon, the US will have to buy all of it's fertilizer from overseas
sources. That will certainly drive up the cost of agriculture and biodiesel.

Jack Dingler

Jack May
October 14th 04, 10:51 PM
"Mike DeMicco" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> I don't believe that because the crop grown to be converted to biofuel has
> displaced other plants that were there before that were probably pumping
> just as much CO2 from the atmosphere. It's also been proven that plants
> can
> not keep up with all the CO2 we're pumping out into the atmosphere - hence
> the current problem we're having with global warming.

If a plant in burned, it has to get CO2 from some where when the plant grows
back to the same size as the plant it replaces.

That carbon usually has to come from CO2 in the atmosphere. Over time it
has to balance out or the amount of plant mass must decrease.

I don't think biomass will be the source of most of our fuel, but it may be
a part of the solution.

Jack May
October 14th 04, 10:58 PM
"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Jack Dingler wrote:
>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>
> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
> one.

Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also. Hydrogen is a portable fuel
for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
practical portable fuel

John David Galt
October 14th 04, 11:54 PM
>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

> "John David Galt" > wrote
>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>> one.

Jack May wrote:
> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.

It would certainly make the notion of replacing fuels with an "electricity
economy" dimwitted, but unlike hydrogen, enough people understand electricity
that nobody has proposed an "electricity economy".

I'm not saying that hydrogen won't ever be practical to use (though it mostly
isn't yet). Just that it can't be a replacement for fossil fuels.

> Hydrogen is a portable fuel
> for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
> having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
> practical portable fuel

These days, both are about equally impractical. It's a tossup which will
become cost effective for cars first. In both cases the present storage
technology is too heavy and holds too little power to make it pay now.

But the point of the "hydrogen economy" is its promise of pollution-free
power, and that promise is a lie. It doesn't surprise me that the Sierra
Club is promoting it, though; they're exactly the kind of people that want to
live in Los Angeles while exporting their pollution to power-plant locations
spread over the whole Southwest.

Matthew Russotto
October 15th 04, 07:29 PM
In article <[email protected]_s53>,
Jack May > wrote:
>
>"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>>
>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>> one.
>
>Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.

Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.

>Hydrogen is a portable fuel
>for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem is
>having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
>practical portable fuel

Synthesized gasoline :-)

George Conklin
October 15th 04, 08:50 PM
"Jack May" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
>
> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>>
>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>> one.
>
> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also. Hydrogen is a portable
> fuel for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The
> problem is having a practical portable fuel for transportation.
> Electricity is not a practical portable fuel
>
>
>

A hydrogen automobile network is entirely possible but not until the
overhead is put in place, and no one is going to do that until oil gets to
much higher value than at the present time.

George Conklin
October 15th 04, 08:50 PM
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]_s53>,
> Jack May > wrote:
>>
>>"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>>> Jack Dingler wrote:
>>>> The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
>>>> which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
>>>> warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
>>>
>>> But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form
>>> of
>>> energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
>>> one.
>>
>>Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.
>
> Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
> dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
> wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.
>
>>Hydrogen is a portable fuel
>>for the most part like electricity, not an energy source. The problem
>>is
>>having a practical portable fuel for transportation. Electricity is not a
>>practical portable fuel
>
> Synthesized gasoline :-)
>
>
>

I am heating by wood today. There is enough around to last me forever,
but I would have to cut a lot of the trees to do so.

Will McW.
October 16th 04, 01:04 AM
John David Galt > wrote in message >...
>
> But the point of the "hydrogen economy" is its promise of pollution-free
> power, and that promise is a lie. It doesn't surprise me that the Sierra
> Club is promoting it, though; they're exactly the kind of people that want to
> live in Los Angeles while exporting their pollution to power-plant locations
> spread over the whole Southwest.

You are mistaken. The Sierra Club does not promote the "hydrogen
economy." Just the opposite.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/lol.asp

John David Galt
October 16th 04, 02:17 AM
>> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.

> Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
> dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
> wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.

And installed enough of those kinds of plants that when people started
switching, most of the new electricity WOULD come from clean sources.
(For most of these that can't be done. The environmental movement has
made nuclear non-cost-effective by demonstrating the willingness to
paralyze it for decades with meritless lawsuits. Most of the workable
hydropower sites have already been built, and the rest are blocked by
scenery-lovers or NIMBYs. Ditto most of the workable wind power sites.
And solar just isn't efficient enough to be worth building, especially
when you don't ignore the expected life span of the solar collectors or
the energy cost of manufacturing them.)

There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
(ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.

Jack May
October 16th 04, 03:02 AM
"Will McW." > wrote in message
om...
> John David Galt > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> But the point of the "hydrogen economy" is its promise of pollution-free
>> power, and that promise is a lie. It doesn't surprise me that the Sierra
>> Club is promoting it, though; they're exactly the kind of people that
>> want to
>> live in Los Angeles while exporting their pollution to power-plant
>> locations
>> spread over the whole Southwest.
>
> You are mistaken. The Sierra Club does not promote the "hydrogen
> economy." Just the opposite.
> http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200405/lol.asp

Must mean its a good solution.

The alternative of conservation they want is a short sighted, ineffective
approach that just delay the problem a little, does not solve the problem of
needing to transition from oil.

Jack May
October 16th 04, 03:05 AM
"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>>> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.
> There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
> (ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.

The British have been working with ocean power for some time. The main
problem is that storms can be so violent that it is very hard to design
systems that will survive for a long time.

Jack Dingler
October 16th 04, 05:17 AM
John David Galt wrote:

>>> Your argument makes electricity dimwitted also.
>>
>
>> Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
>> dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
>> wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.
>
>
> And installed enough of those kinds of plants that when people started
> switching, most of the new electricity WOULD come from clean sources.
> (For most of these that can't be done. The environmental movement has
> made nuclear non-cost-effective by demonstrating the willingness to
> paralyze it for decades with meritless lawsuits. Most of the workable
> hydropower sites have already been built, and the rest are blocked by
> scenery-lovers or NIMBYs. Ditto most of the workable wind power sites.
> And solar just isn't efficient enough to be worth building, especially
> when you don't ignore the expected life span of the solar collectors or
> the energy cost of manufacturing them.)
>
> There ARE still some good alternative-energy sources that can be tapped
> (ocean-thermal, for one) and should be, but I doubt it will happen soon.


Delaware Offering Radiation Protection Pills
Meanwhile, the state of Delaware will be handing out potassium iodide pills
to residents living in the shadow of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear
plants. Officials said that the pills will protect the thyroid gland in the
event of a radiation release. People living within 10 miles of the reactors
can get the pills on Wednesday at the Townsend Fire Company and on Oct. 28
at the Appoquinimink state service center in Middletown, Del. Residents
should bring proof of address
http://www.nbc10.com/news/3801110/detail.html

Nuclear agency probes plant shortcomings
TRENTON -- The Salem nuclear plant is deficient in dozens of critical
aspects and is being investigated over reports that employees were afraid to
express safety concerns, according to a published report.
Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability of
equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
unreliable controls on a reactor.
In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported
http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1076695,00.html

Jack Dingler

Jack May
October 16th 04, 06:50 AM
"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s52...
>
.. . .
> Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability
> of
> equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
> yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
> unreliable controls on a reactor.
> In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
> claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
> them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported

And the ratio of people that have died from coal pollution to the number of
people that have died from nuclear power plant radiation is ...?

You also think that no advances in nuclear power plant safety over the
decades? Your problem with pebble bed and other new reactor designs that
can not melt down even without controls is what?

Do you believe that the world never changes and problems are never be
solved?

Jack Dingler
October 16th 04, 05:39 PM
Jack May wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]_s52...
>
>
>. . .
>
>
>>Problems cited in reports by private consultants include the reliability
>>of
>>equipment and availability of spare parts, The New York Times reported in
>>yesterday's editions. Reports specifically noted a leaky generator and
>>unreliable controls on a reactor.
>>In addition, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating
>>claims by at least two employees that their superiors retaliated against
>>them after they expressed concerns about safety, the newspaper reported
>>
>>
>
>And the ratio of people that have died from coal pollution to the number of
>people that have died from nuclear power plant radiation is ...?
>
>You also think that no advances in nuclear power plant safety over the
>decades? Your problem with pebble bed and other new reactor designs that
>can not melt down even without controls is what?
>
>Do you believe that the world never changes and problems are never be
>solved?
>
>
>

Those quotes were from the article. I didn't write them.

Pebble beds so far have some sort of weird run away feedback problem.
The experimental versions don't work yet. Maybe they will work one day.

But what worries me is the that many in nuclear crowd wants nukes to
replace oil. To reach that quantity of energy production, we'd need
thousands in the US. Then we'd need to build hundreds every year to keep
economic growth going. To man these things I guess we could import cheap
engineers with fake degrees from India. Our own education systems aren't
prepared for this.

Finally, we need to be building them by the hundreds now so that in ten
years, when we absolutely need them need them, they will be ready. I see
no sign we're doing that now.

Some folks here argue that we'll build nukes during the energy decline.
But that's like investing after you're retired, without investing before
you retire. Isn't it prudent to invest when you have resources rather
than wait until you don't have them?

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
October 16th 04, 05:47 PM
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013

There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
will be down to the mid-thirties.

Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.

Jack Dingler

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
October 17th 04, 03:44 AM
Jack Dingler > wrote in message news:<[email protected]_s54>...
> http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>
> There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
> represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
> and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
> will be down to the mid-thirties.
>
> Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>
> Jack Dingler

Crude is now going for $55 a barrel. A year ago it was $27. It's a
speculative bubble and it will end soon. $40 before the eoy. As we
speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
stocks.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 17th 04, 11:24 AM
On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
>:

>As we
>speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
>stocks.

ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Mitch Haley
October 17th 04, 01:01 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, (Laura Bush
> murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
> >:
>
> >As we
> >speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
> >stocks.
>
> ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.

A lot of people who are considered investors will sell their stock
after it has stopped appreciating in favor of buying a stock which
appears to have better current prospects for appreciation.

The speculators I'm thinking of were the ones who bought crude futures
at $40 a barrel in hopes of quickly seeing $50 a barrel. I wish I were
one of them.
Mitch.

Jack Dingler
October 17th 04, 03:02 PM
Mitch Haley wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
>
>>On 16 Oct 2004 19:44:24 -0700, (Laura Bush
>>murdered her boy friend) wrote in message
>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>As we
>>>speak, investors are rotating out of energy and into technology
>>>stocks.
>>>
>>>
>>ITYM "speculators". Investors are in for the long haul.
>>
>>
>
>A lot of people who are considered investors will sell their stock
>after it has stopped appreciating in favor of buying a stock which
>appears to have better current prospects for appreciation.
>
>The speculators I'm thinking of were the ones who bought crude futures
>at $40 a barrel in hopes of quickly seeing $50 a barrel. I wish I were
>one of them.
>Mitch.
>

Exactly. They see the end of the $50 crude coming, as demand destruction
signs are picking up.

We've seen a rise in the jobless rate and signs the economy has slowed.
By shedding jobs and increasing both business and personal bankruptcies,
the economy is able to account for supply and demand mismatches and
automatically correct. This is natural. The only way to keep jobs going,
would be to find ways to free up fuel from other less necessary uses.
Capitalism has no innate mechanism for managing this, so boom and bust
is the natural mechanism. As production increases in energy aren't
keeping pace with population growth in the US, the net effect is that
energy per capita is declining and the result is a cooling off of the
economy and net job loss.

The same situation happens in ecological systems when the food supply
doesn't rise to meet the population. The population self reduces to
match the food supply. As this is often an overshoot situation the
population usually drops lower than it need be, then swings back up
again for another crash. This happened to the reindeer on Matthew
Island. In healthy ecosystems, there are checks and balances and
populations have limiting mechanisms. We work hard though to eliminate
checks on the economy though. Because we're always trying to run it flat
out at maximum speed, it's prone to the boom and bust cycle as it hits
resource limits.

2005 should be a correction year with a new recession kicking in for the
first quarter. By shedding jobs and businesses, the economy will cool
until demand for oil is reduced enough to bring the price back down. The
US Gov will compensate by releasing a flood of money into the economy,
and this will raise fuel prices and pick up economic growth again until
it hits those supply and demand limits again.

The problem with blaming speculators every time prices rise, is that
this argument often must pretend that the laws of supply and demand
don't exist. Even at $54 / barrel for crude, production all up and down
the chain is running flat out. The wells are pumping as fast as they
can, storage is way down, tanker contracts are high, refineries are
running flat out. This means we're sucking the oil out of the ground as
fast as we can and using it just as fast. When supply and demand get
this tight, basic economics tells us the price will rise.

And yes, speculators will cause price increases as will any little
setback in the supply and demand chain. But only because the supply and
demand chain has no slack. When you're running at maximum capacity, the
slightest setback will magnify in costs.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 18th 04, 11:07 AM
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:29:47 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
>dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
>wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.

That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
businesses.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Matthew Russotto
October 18th 04, 03:21 PM
In article <[email protected]_s54>,
Jack Dingler > wrote:
>http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>
>There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
>represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
>and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
>will be down to the mid-thirties.
>
>Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.

Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
wrong each time?

Matthew Russotto
October 18th 04, 04:20 PM
In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:29:47 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>Electricity being touted as a replacement for fossil fuels WOULD be
>>dimwitted, unless you specified electricity generated by nuclear,
>>wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other non-fossil sources.
>
>That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
>of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
>businesses.

Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
current technology for storage is so poor.

Baxter
October 18th 04, 04:57 PM
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]_s54>,
> Jack Dingler > wrote:
> >http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
> >
> >There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
> >represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
> >and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
> >will be down to the mid-thirties.
> >
> >Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>
> Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
> vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
> have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
> wrong each time?
>
Do recall that in the story about the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, that the
wolf did in fact finally show up.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 18th 04, 05:28 PM
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:20:07 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
>current technology for storage is so poor.

There is a pretty good storage system at Dinorwig. Transmission
losses are of course an issue (as they are with any form of fuel; you
cannot pump oil without using energy). OTOH local combined heat and
power installations are an option, with minimal transmisison distances
and collateral use of the waste heat (which also exists in large
quantities in the oil refining process).

The key here is flexibility. I can put a PV array on my roof and
generate up to 2/3 of my own domestic electricity requirements.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Jack Dingler
October 18th 04, 06:38 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <[email protected]_s54>,
>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>>
>>There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
>>represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
>>and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
>>will be down to the mid-thirties.
>>
>>Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>>
>>
>
>Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
>vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
>have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
>wrong each time?
>
>
>

Let's see, oil is a finite resource. When we use it, we burn it and what
we use is gone forever.

Does this mean...
A. Oil will last forever?
B. Oil will eventually run out?

If you chose 'A', the you must believe that oil is actually infinite in
quantity. You might believe that the Earth is flat or that the
accessible oil exceeds the volume of the universe.

If you believe in 'B', then you're just baiting me and lying about your
position, because we're not arguing whether oil will run out, but when.

Jack Dingler

Matthew Russotto
October 18th 04, 07:59 PM
In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:20:07 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
>>current technology for storage is so poor.
>
>There is a pretty good storage system at Dinorwig.

Doesn't scale down to transportable applications, though.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 18th 04, 08:31 PM
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:59:33 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
>:

>>There is a pretty good storage system at Dinorwig.
>Doesn't scale down to transportable applications, though.

Oh I dunno, a couple of thousand gallons of water in a tank on the
roof should at least slow the cagers down to the point they stop
killing people ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Big Bill
October 18th 04, 11:06 PM
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:38:02 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]_s54>,
>>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/#Julian20041013
>>>
>>>There's talk about oil prices staying high, but they won't. They
>>>represent negative feedback to the economy. Once enough jobs are shed
>>>and especially after the economic downturn in 2005, I think oil prices
>>>will be down to the mid-thirties.
>>>
>>>Matthew, you need to get on CNN and argue your case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why would I bother? Who, besides other Chicken Littles and those with
>>vested interests in believing them, is going to listen to people who
>>have announced that Oil Is Running Out many times before and been
>>wrong each time?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Let's see, oil is a finite resource. When we use it, we burn it and what
>we use is gone forever.
>
>Does this mean...
>A. Oil will last forever?
>B. Oil will eventually run out?
>
>If you chose 'A', the you must believe that oil is actually infinite in
>quantity. You might believe that the Earth is flat or that the
>accessible oil exceeds the volume of the universe.
>
>If you believe in 'B', then you're just baiting me and lying about your
>position, because we're not arguing whether oil will run out, but when.
>
>Jack Dingler

There's a difference between, "Oil *will* run out", and "Oil *is*
running out."
We know it *will* run out. When is the question.
IMO, it's kinda rediculous to think that those who profit from energy
production & distribution aren't working to keep their income secure.
They can't make more oil than there is, so they *must* be working on a
replacement. It's economic suicide for them to not do this. They are
even getting various governments around the world to help fund this.
When oil *does* run out (and probably before) there will be something
to take it's place.
Remember ambergris? Now, we only find it by chance. We don't miss it
much.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 12:22 AM
Big Bill wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:38:02 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Let's see, oil is a finite resource. When we use it, we burn it and what
>>we use is gone forever.
>>
>>Does this mean...
>>A. Oil will last forever?
>>B. Oil will eventually run out?
>>
>>If you chose 'A', the you must believe that oil is actually infinite in
>>quantity. You might believe that the Earth is flat or that the
>>accessible oil exceeds the volume of the universe.
>>
>>If you believe in 'B', then you're just baiting me and lying about your
>>position, because we're not arguing whether oil will run out, but when.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
>There's a difference between, "Oil *will* run out", and "Oil *is*
>running out."
>We know it *will* run out. When is the question.
>IMO, it's kinda rediculous to think that those who profit from energy
>production & distribution aren't working to keep their income secure.
>They can't make more oil than there is, so they *must* be working on a
>replacement. It's economic suicide for them to not do this. They are
>even getting various governments around the world to help fund this.
>When oil *does* run out (and probably before) there will be something
>to take it's place.
>Remember ambergris? Now, we only find it by chance. We don't miss it
>much.
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
a false assumption.

I personally, have no idea what could possibly replace oil in energy
concentration and convenience. Civilization has been exploiting ever
more concentrated and convenient forms of energy since man first started
burning wood. What's the next step?

I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
cheap abundant and easily used energy source ready to replace the
fossilized energy in oil, we'd already be using it. After all, wouldn't
it be cheaper and more abundant than petroleum, just as petroleum is
cheaper and more abundant than whale oil?

Here's a link describing ambergris and it's use as an agent in making
perfumes. I'm not sure what this has to do with energy and fuel.
http://www.netstrider.com/documents/ambergris/

Jack Dingler

Robert Haston
October 19th 04, 02:51 PM
Speaking of energy storage

Since mountain reservoirs are pretty rare, I thought about using huge round
stone or concrete blocks, linked into a web like a cab driver's beaded seat
cover, and pulled or lowered on a mountain side.

The numbers are easy to figure (lifting 550lbs 1'/sec = 750 watts). The
result is pretty feasible, and easier to safeguard than a dam is. Also, I
think it would be cool "modern art".

I think the greatest change will be energy prices changing hourly based on
supply of wind/solar, etc. For example, you would set the price for your
electric car to wait and charge at. When the stones are at the top of the
mountain (so to speak) electricity would be cheapest.


"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:59:33 -0500,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
> >:
>
>>>There is a pretty good storage system at Dinorwig.
>>Doesn't scale down to transportable applications, though.
>
> Oh I dunno, a couple of thousand gallons of water in a tank on the
> roof should at least slow the cagers down to the point they stop
> killing people ;-)
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Matthew Russotto
October 19th 04, 03:38 PM
In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:59:33 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
>:
>
>>>There is a pretty good storage system at Dinorwig.
>>Doesn't scale down to transportable applications, though.
>
>Oh I dunno, a couple of thousand gallons of water in a tank on the
>roof should at least slow the cagers down to the point they stop
>killing people ;-)

Given the poor handling characteristics of such a vehicle, I rather
expect it would and could kill at almost any speed.

Matthew Russotto
October 19th 04, 04:01 PM
In article et>,
Robert Haston > wrote:
>
>To me the only bright future is where we use technology to replace waste.
>There is no reason a life that consumes 20% of the energy we do now would
>not only be comfortable, but happier than the high-powered, slaves at the
>wheel, he who buys and throws away the most crap wins society.

OK, that's one vote for shivering in the dark. (and if it ain't, show
me where I can eliminate 80% of energy consumption and still be
comfortable).

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 04:45 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article et>,
>Robert Haston > wrote:
>
>
>>To me the only bright future is where we use technology to replace waste.
>>There is no reason a life that consumes 20% of the energy we do now would
>>not only be comfortable, but happier than the high-powered, slaves at the
>>wheel, he who buys and throws away the most crap wins society.
>>
>>
>
>OK, that's one vote for shivering in the dark. (and if it ain't, show
>me where I can eliminate 80% of energy consumption and still be
>comfortable).
>

I thought you were an engineer. :)

In the US, we can't do this. That's only possible in Europe. Ask any
Washington politician.

Jack Dingler

Jack May
October 19th 04, 05:23 PM
"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s01...

> That is true of societies living on the margins. But an average life span
> of 28 years (excluding infant mortality), was not the norm.

There is measured data from church records in England several hundred years
ago and from primitive tribes. The mortality curves are about the same.
There is a sharp drop from birth to 5 years old that I think half the kids
were still alive at 5. From 5 to 42 the chances of dying were the same at
all ages. You had the same chance of dying for example at 20 as you had of
dying at 40.

A person had a 2% chance of living to age 42. After 42 the chances of
dying went way down and a lot of people lived a life span up into old age
even into the 70s and 80s if not longer. The 2% living longer may have had
a genetic advantage or possibly were the wealth / nobility with a better
life, but that is a guess.

This is what was normal for societies until the last few hundred years.

The two most common causes of death were pneumonia (probably exposure, lack
of heat, heavy pollution, etc) and infection from cuts (no bath, filth,
etc.). Heating and baths were probably the main factors that increased
life span for the average person.

I did notice in the church grave yard in an old town type park in Va.
(Williamsburg?) that is seemed that 55 was about the life span even for the
wealthier people. At work we also get a lot of smokers that die in the 55
to 60 range. I wonder if they are both related to the heavy effects of high
pollution from cigarettes now or bad farm environments back in the past

Baxter
October 19th 04, 07:33 PM
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
> programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
> don't know how to handle.

A sure recipe for disaster. I'd fire any such programmer.

Big Bill
October 19th 04, 09:05 PM
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:22:31 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>
>
>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:38:02 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let's see, oil is a finite resource. When we use it, we burn it and what
>>>we use is gone forever.
>>>
>>>Does this mean...
>>>A. Oil will last forever?
>>>B. Oil will eventually run out?
>>>
>>>If you chose 'A', the you must believe that oil is actually infinite in
>>>quantity. You might believe that the Earth is flat or that the
>>>accessible oil exceeds the volume of the universe.
>>>
>>>If you believe in 'B', then you're just baiting me and lying about your
>>>position, because we're not arguing whether oil will run out, but when.
>>>
>>>Jack Dingler
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There's a difference between, "Oil *will* run out", and "Oil *is*
>>running out."
>>We know it *will* run out. When is the question.
>>IMO, it's kinda rediculous to think that those who profit from energy
>>production & distribution aren't working to keep their income secure.
>>They can't make more oil than there is, so they *must* be working on a
>>replacement. It's economic suicide for them to not do this. They are
>>even getting various governments around the world to help fund this.
>>When oil *does* run out (and probably before) there will be something
>>to take it's place.
>>Remember ambergris? Now, we only find it by chance. We don't miss it
>>much.
>>
>>Bill Funk
>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>
>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>a false assumption.

Ask them. I never claimed to be part of that group.
>
>I personally, have no idea what could possibly replace oil in energy
>concentration and convenience. Civilization has been exploiting ever
>more concentrated and convenient forms of energy since man first started
>burning wood. What's the next step?

Did I make a claim that there's something that would "replace oil in
energy concentration and convenience"? No, I didn't.
>
>I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
>that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
>geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
>requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
>century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
>makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
>cheap abundant and easily used energy source ready to replace the
>fossilized energy in oil, we'd already be using it. After all, wouldn't
>it be cheaper and more abundant than petroleum, just as petroleum is
>cheaper and more abundant than whale oil?
>
>Here's a link describing ambergris and it's use as an agent in making
>perfumes. I'm not sure what this has to do with energy and fuel.
>http://www.netstrider.com/documents/ambergris/
>
>Jack Dingler

I think you're fumbling in the dark because you want the situation
we're in to be *somone's fault*, and they better get us a solution
*right now*!
Instead, try a calm understanding of the problem, and see that oil
won't run out next year.
Then look around at the research (theoretical as well as practical)
that's going on now.
Put them together, and you'll see the sky isn't falling.
Why are you so insistant that you are the only one who can see beyond
his nose? Why aren't *you* out there finding this new energy source?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill
October 19th 04, 09:11 PM
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>
>>
>
>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.

Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
and gloom friends feed you.
No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 09:37 PM
Big Bill wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:22:31 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
>>that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
>>geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
>>requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
>>century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
>>makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
>>cheap abundant and easily used energy source ready to replace the
>>fossilized energy in oil, we'd already be using it. After all, wouldn't
>>it be cheaper and more abundant than petroleum, just as petroleum is
>>cheaper and more abundant than whale oil?
>>
>>Here's a link describing ambergris and it's use as an agent in making
>>perfumes. I'm not sure what this has to do with energy and fuel.
>>http://www.netstrider.com/documents/ambergris/
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
>I think you're fumbling in the dark because you want the situation
>we're in to be *somone's fault*, and they better get us a solution
>*right now*!
>Instead, try a calm understanding of the problem, and see that oil
>won't run out next year.
>Then look around at the research (theoretical as well as practical)
>that's going on now.
>Put them together, and you'll see the sky isn't falling.
>Why are you so insistant that you are the only one who can see beyond
>his nose? Why aren't *you* out there finding this new energy source?
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

Oil will never run out. After some point, to be determined historically,
there will just be less and less to go around, until in the end, there's
none for us, but some still in the ground, never to be recovered.

It would be false to argue that oil will run out.

Right now, oil growth is no longer keeping up with population growth and
hasn't since 1987. So the quantity of oil per person has already been in
decline for this period. Once oil production peaks and goes into it's
fifty year decline, there will be less oil per person every year at an
accelerating rate.

And the research going on now hasn't significantly improved since the
1970s. Solar panels are more efficient by not enough to turn the tide.
In fact, if you look at the research going on now, it's all future
dreams stuff, just like it always has been.

Keep in mind that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but simply
converted from higher state to a lower state in the service of entropy.
There is no new source. We've exploited all of the easy stuff. And the
hard stuff, doesn't give a good return. Nothing on the order to sustain
our civilization.

And it's our nature at fault. Not someone else's. It's your fault and my
fault. It's just the way we are wired. We are helpless to change our
course and will refuse to do so until forced to.

One day we'll just have to learn to live with it. But that requires
preparation and that's not our nature. We'll go down fighting for
resources instead.

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 09:45 PM
Big Bill wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.
>>
>>
>
>Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
>Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
>and gloom friends feed you.
>No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?
>
>Bill Funk
>Change "g" to "a"
>

Actually they are. Natural gas is running low in Texas, so the industry
is now drilling for natural gas int he suburbs.

There you have it.

But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
producing eletricity in the US today?

Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.

And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

Jack Dingler

George Conklin
October 19th 04, 09:57 PM
"Jack May" > wrote in message
news:%[email protected]_s04...
>
> "Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s01...
>
>> That is true of societies living on the margins. But an average life span
>> of 28 years (excluding infant mortality), was not the norm.
>
> There is measured data from church records in England several hundred
> years ago and from primitive tribes. The mortality curves are about the
> same. There is a sharp drop from birth to 5 years old that I think half
> the kids were still alive at 5. From 5 to 42 the chances of dying were
> the same at all ages. You had the same chance of dying for example at 20
> as you had of dying at 40.
>
> A person had a 2% chance of living to age 42. After 42 the chances of
> dying went way down and a lot of people lived a life span up into old age
> even into the 70s and 80s if not longer. The 2% living longer may have
> had a genetic advantage or possibly were the wealth / nobility with a
> better life, but that is a guess.
>
> This is what was normal for societies until the last few hundred years.
>
> The two most common causes of death were pneumonia (probably exposure,
> lack of heat, heavy pollution, etc) and infection from cuts (no bath,
> filth, etc.). Heating and baths were probably the main factors that
> increased life span for the average person.
>
> I did notice in the church grave yard in an old town type park in Va.
> (Williamsburg?) that is seemed that 55 was about the life span even for
> the wealthier people. At work we also get a lot of smokers that die in
> the 55 to 60 range. I wonder if they are both related to the heavy
> effects of high pollution from cigarettes now or bad farm environments
> back in the past
>

Correct. I can list the correlates of the demographic transition from
memory since we all cover them in the basic course. Clean water did help,
of course, as did the end of home looms and the growth of cotton which made
the washing of clothes possible. All of it was tied to economic development
which was possible when transporation was improved and made food transport
possible. In short, it was travel and energy which saved lives.

Big Bill
October 19th 04, 10:31 PM
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:44:08 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So would anyone else. Yet no one is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right here, you demonstrate the proctologist's view of the world.
>>Pull out, look around, and actually *try* to see more than your doom
>>and gloom friends feed you.
>>No one is working on other power/energy sources? Where do you live?
>>
>>Bill Funk
>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>
>Actually they are. Natural gas is running low in Texas, so the industry
>is now drilling for natural gas int he suburbs.
>
>There you have it.

There I have what?
You don't really think that's it as far as searching for alternative
means of energy, do you?
If so, you're more stupid than I thought.
>
>But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
>replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
>now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
>producing eletricity in the US today?

Ah, moving the goalposts. Did your doom & gloom (D&G for short, as
we'll probably use that term a lot) friends tell you to add that?
Why can't you think for yourself instead of merely repeating what your
D&G friends tell you?
Why does it need to be an exact BTU replacement? Why can't we also
work on conservation & waste reduction?
And why "now"? Aren't you paying attention? Oil isn't running out by
the end of November. Or even next year. There's time to do this right.
>
>Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
>scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.

I never even hinted that it's secret.
I will say, though, that it's obviously a surprise to you, because you
haven't been even trying to see if your D&G friends are right.

Here's a start:
http://www.google.com/search?q=alternative+energy+research&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Or, because you seem to have trouble actually using the internet:
http://tinyurl.com/53uxc
>
>And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
>doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

You just make the claim, though.
You claim that there's no research being done, because *you* don't
know about it.
Have you put yourself in a position where those doing the research
report to you? I seriously doubt that.
Learn. Educate yourself.
>
>Jack Dingler

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

RJ
October 19th 04, 11:23 PM
Robert Haston > wrote:

> Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
> hydrogen as an energy carrier.

Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
you can see the sun about 10 days a year.

fbloogyudsr
October 19th 04, 11:30 PM
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote
> Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
>>of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
>>businesses.
>
> Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
> current technology for storage is so poor.

I'm curious why you make this statement. AFAIK (and I have a BS EE
degree from a college that specializes in Power), the actual *transmission*
of electricity from one place to another is about the most efficient system
man has ever devised and built. For instance, transformers are around
99% efficient, and are the most efficient *machine* that mankind has
ever constructed. Even the conversion of AC to DC (for very long-distance
transmission) and back is pretty efficient: it's done to eliminate the
losses
in transmission lines due to EMF/transmission line losses, which is already
small compared to the power transmitted.

Even the AC generators are reasonably efficient in conversion of
rotational energy to electricity. Thermal powerplants are only in
the 40% range: is that what you're thinking of?

Floyd

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 11:37 PM
Big Bill wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>
>There I have what?
>You don't really think that's it as far as searching for alternative
>means of energy, do you?
>If so, you're more stupid than I thought.
>
>
>>But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
>>replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
>>now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
>>producing eletricity in the US today?
>>
>>
>
>Ah, moving the goalposts. Did your doom & gloom (D&G for short, as
>we'll probably use that term a lot) friends tell you to add that?
>Why can't you think for yourself instead of merely repeating what your
>D&G friends tell you?
>Why does it need to be an exact BTU replacement? Why can't we also
>work on conservation & waste reduction?
>And why "now"? Aren't you paying attention? Oil isn't running out by
>the end of November. Or even next year. There's time to do this right.
>

Moving the goal posts? What the heck are you talking about. The crux of
my argument hasn't changed. Did you get my posts mixed up with someone
else's? Or are you not reading what I write?

How much time do you think it takes? I think we're in for a fifty year
decline. During the decline, I think it will be impossible to build the
infrastructure required to replace oil. The best I think we can hope for
is small community changes in midst of chaos.

At this time, global oil production might be past it's peak. We may be
in the decline now. The short term numbers are adding up that way. But
only a historical assessment a few years down the road will tell us for
sure.

And in the future, if there's one well, pumping a few pints a day, then
clearly we haven''t run out. There's a great deal of fun in playing with
semantics on the topic. Since some of the oil will always be
unrecoverable, we'll never run out. We won't have any, but the planet
will. Just like the world never ran out of dodo birds or passenger
pigeons. There's still some stuffed ones in museums. See, we never ran
out! Word games in the oil mythos are cool!

>>Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
>>scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.
>>
>>
>
>I never even hinted that it's secret.
>I will say, though, that it's obviously a surprise to you, because you
>haven't been even trying to see if your D&G friends are right.
>
>Here's a start:
>http://www.google.com/search?q=alternative+energy+research&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
>Or, because you seem to have trouble actually using the internet:
>http://tinyurl.com/53uxc
>
>
>>And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
>>doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>
>You just make the claim, though.
>You claim that there's no research being done, because *you* don't
>know about it.
>Have you put yourself in a position where those doing the research
>report to you? I seriously doubt that.
>Learn. Educate yourself.
>
>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
Dude, those aren't going to keep civilization growing past the oil age.
They can't be scaled to that degree. You're still arguing that a
janitor's pay can give someone a Donald Trump lifestyle.

And no, I never moved the goal posts. My argument has stayed the same.
There is no ready replacement for oil waiting in the wings. There is no
energy source, even the old tried and true wind and solar technologies,
much less some science fiction option, waiting in the wings, that can
replace the BTUs in oil and provide the 2% per annum growth that oil
once enjoyed.

If you think the technologies you've linked above, solar, wind, biomass,
can be scaled to replace oil, then you have no idea what that scale is.
If these people are really reporting to you, if you really employ these
people, then get them to educate you on energy conversion units. I've
never been a mid level manager, I've always been a math, sciences and
engineering guy. Unlike you, I don't need other people to do my homework
for me. I have skills to do the math and conversions myself.

As an experiment, have one of your engineers, draw up the rough
calculations for how much one of these systems would have to be scaled
up to produce that same energy as is consumed in oil and natural gas
everyday.

Jack Dingler

Baxter
October 20th 04, 02:46 AM
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"RJ" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Haston > wrote:
>
> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense
than
> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.
>
> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.

Think about it - the Eskimos manage quite well without electricity, oil,
gas, furnaces, etc.

Mitch Haley
October 20th 04, 03:08 AM
RJ wrote:
>
> Robert Haston > wrote:
>
> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.
>
> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.

I believe he was talking about packaging the energy from wind turbines
into solar panels in order to ship that energy elsewhere. An answer to the
question of where the energy to make solar panels would come from in
a non-petroleum economy. Shipping the panels to Death Valley might be a bit
of a problem in a post-petroleum world.

Mitch.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 20th 04, 12:07 PM
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:35:44 GMT, "George Conklin"
> wrote:

> You trash actual history. The whole goal of civilization has been to
>protect us from the ravages of nature, with a life expectancy of 28 years
>at best. When transporation of food became practical with railroads, the
>death rates began their sharp declines. It was the cheap transporation of
>food which did it. Nature is not kind to us.

An interesting idea, but somewhat at odds with the Biblical notional
lifespan of three score and ten; average life expectancy is only 10%
above that even now. And (on-topic) regular cyclists have a higher
average life expectancy than those who rely more heavily on
oil-powered transport :-)

You can't claim the benefits without acknowledging the costs here, I
think.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Matthew Russotto
October 20th 04, 02:57 PM
In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote
>> Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>That is one of the benefits of electricity: it is amenable to changes
>>>of fuel without having to re-equip vast numbers of homes and
>>>businesses.
>>
>> Too bad the transmission and distribution losses are so high and the
>> current technology for storage is so poor.
>
>I'm curious why you make this statement. AFAIK (and I have a BS EE
>degree from a college that specializes in Power), the actual *transmission*
>of electricity from one place to another is about the most efficient system
>man has ever devised and built. For instance, transformers are around
>99% efficient, and are the most efficient *machine* that mankind has
>ever constructed. Even the conversion of AC to DC (for very long-distance
>transmission) and back is pretty efficient: it's done to eliminate the
>losses
>in transmission lines due to EMF/transmission line losses, which is already
>small compared to the power transmitted.

I've seen figures for transmission and distribution losses from 20% to
50%. I'm no power systems engineer, though.

fbloogyudsr
October 20th 04, 05:18 PM
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote
> I've seen figures for transmission and distribution losses from 20% to
> 50%. I'm no power systems engineer, though.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Electric_power_transmission
and
http://www.caddet.org/technologies/search.php?id=25

characterize transmission losses as well below 10%.
However, IIRC, losses in a pumped-storage facility run in the
40%-60% range... Perhaps that what you remember.

Floyd

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 20th 04, 05:24 PM
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:18:49 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Electric_power_transmission
>and
>http://www.caddet.org/technologies/search.php?id=25
>
>characterize transmission losses as well below 10%.
>However, IIRC, losses in a pumped-storage facility run in the
>40%-60% range... Perhaps that what you remember.

Possibly thinking of overall thermal efficiency? That would be
consistent.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

fbloogyudsr
October 20th 04, 05:28 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:18:49 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
>>http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Electric_power_transmission
>>and
>>http://www.caddet.org/technologies/search.php?id=25
>>
>>characterize transmission losses as well below 10%.
>>However, IIRC, losses in a pumped-storage facility run in the
>>40%-60% range... Perhaps that what you remember.
>
> Possibly thinking of overall thermal efficiency? That would be
> consistent.

Only for a thermal (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) plant - hydro, solar,
wind and others have far different efficiencies.

Floyd

Floyd L. Davidson
October 20th 04, 06:23 PM
"Baxter" > wrote:
>"RJ" > wrote
>> Robert Haston > wrote:
>>
>> > Solar has yet to be a serious contender, although solar panel plants in
>> > hellaciously windy areas, such as the Aleutians make far better sense than
>> > hydrogen as an energy carrier.

Hydrogen is much more efficient to transport.

>> Yeah, solar power in the Aleutians would be really great. On Shemya,
>> you can see the sun about 10 days a year.

The point is that wind provides the power...

>Think about it - the Eskimos manage quite well without electricity, oil,
>gas, furnaces, etc.

Where's that at? You must have a time machine, because nobody I know has
done without all of the above for about 40 years now.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Big Bill
October 20th 04, 08:14 PM
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:37:01 GMT, Jack Dingler >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:06 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>There I have what?
>>You don't really think that's it as far as searching for alternative
>>means of energy, do you?
>>If so, you're more stupid than I thought.
>>
>>
>>>But I'll call you bluff, what energy source is waiting in the wings to
>>>replace the raw BTUs from oil and gas, and can be put into production
>>>now? What fuel is it that can produce more power than all the systems
>>>producing eletricity in the US today?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ah, moving the goalposts. Did your doom & gloom (D&G for short, as
>>we'll probably use that term a lot) friends tell you to add that?
>>Why can't you think for yourself instead of merely repeating what your
>>D&G friends tell you?
>>Why does it need to be an exact BTU replacement? Why can't we also
>>work on conservation & waste reduction?
>>And why "now"? Aren't you paying attention? Oil isn't running out by
>>the end of November. Or even next year. There's time to do this right.
>>
>
>Moving the goal posts? What the heck are you talking about. The crux of
>my argument hasn't changed. Did you get my posts mixed up with someone
>else's? Or are you not reading what I write?

Yes, moving he goalposts.
You're now demanding something you didn't ask for before.
I'm sure you see it as only better defining you rposition, but you've
changed it into something else.
Calling my bluff? I gave URLs; did you even look at them at all?
>
>How much time do you think it takes? I think we're in for a fifty year
>decline. During the decline, I think it will be impossible to build the
>infrastructure required to replace oil. The best I think we can hope for
>is small community changes in midst of chaos.

What *you* think seems to carry a lot of weight with you.
What credentials do you bring to the conversation to trump the URLs I
gave to show that the research is being done right now?
>
>At this time, global oil production might be past it's peak. We may be
>in the decline now. The short term numbers are adding up that way. But
>only a historical assessment a few years down the road will tell us for
>sure.
>
>And in the future, if there's one well, pumping a few pints a day, then
>clearly we haven''t run out. There's a great deal of fun in playing with
>semantics on the topic. Since some of the oil will always be
>unrecoverable, we'll never run out. We won't have any, but the planet
>will. Just like the world never ran out of dodo birds or passenger
>pigeons. There's still some stuffed ones in museums. See, we never ran
>out! Word games in the oil mythos are cool!

I'm not playing with semantics; nice attempt at a strawman.
Where, specifically, did I suggest that we'd never need an alternative
to oil?
>
>>>Your argument seems to be based on some fantasy that there's some secret
>>>scientific group working on an exotic power source. I don't buy it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I never even hinted that it's secret.
>>I will say, though, that it's obviously a surprise to you, because you
>>haven't been even trying to see if your D&G friends are right.
>>
>>Here's a start:
>>http://www.google.com/search?q=alternative+energy+research&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
>>Or, because you seem to have trouble actually using the internet:
>>http://tinyurl.com/53uxc
>>
>>
>>>And of course, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that something
>>>doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You just make the claim, though.
>>You claim that there's no research being done, because *you* don't
>>know about it.
>>Have you put yourself in a position where those doing the research
>>report to you? I seriously doubt that.
>>Learn. Educate yourself.
>>
>>
>>>Jack Dingler
>>>
>>>
>Dude, those aren't going to keep civilization growing past the oil age.
>They can't be scaled to that degree. You're still arguing that a
>janitor's pay can give someone a Donald Trump lifestyle.

Um, I said that?
Instead, I said (and gave a link so that you could do your own
research on the matter) that research is being done now on what will
replace oil.
You are refusing to recognize reality. I'm not sure what you have to
gain from this, except that maybe you feel your investment in G&D is
so large that it must be advanced in the face of reality.
>
>And no, I never moved the goal posts. My argument has stayed the same.
>There is no ready replacement for oil waiting in the wings. There is no
>energy source, even the old tried and true wind and solar technologies,
>much less some science fiction option, waiting in the wings, that can
>replace the BTUs in oil and provide the 2% per annum growth that oil
>once enjoyed.

If, by "in the wings" you mean ready to go now, yes, you've moved the
goalposts, because that's not the point; the point is, very plainly,
that we have many years of oil production left, and research to find a
replacement energy source in underway as we write. We ar enot going to
suddenly find that we have no energy because of a natural shortage of
oil.
>
>If you think the technologies you've linked above, solar, wind, biomass,
>can be scaled to replace oil, then you have no idea what that scale is.
>If these people are really reporting to you, if you really employ these
>people, then get them to educate you on energy conversion units. I've
>never been a mid level manager, I've always been a math, sciences and
>engineering guy. Unlike you, I don't need other people to do my homework
>for me. I have skills to do the math and conversions myself.

I did no tlimit myself to any technology. That's your bag.
And your self-evidentiary skills are in denial of reality. Withiout
the ability to see beyond your own prejudices, those skills only work
on the data you want to work with, and not that data which falls
outside your own rather limited view.
Sorry, them's the facts.

>
>As an experiment, have one of your engineers, draw up the rough
>calculations for how much one of these systems would have to be scaled
>up to produce that same energy as is consumed in oil and natural gas
>everyday.

What engineers do you claim to be *mine*?
To play your silly game, there is an energy source that's ready to
take a large part of oil's part right now; it's been demonstrated to
be safe in applications around the globe, but has been denied because
of people like you who can't see well because of a rectal-cranial
inversion. You cry that D&G is upon us, and fail to recognize what's
really going on. Look around, and see.
>
>Jack Dingler

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Jack May
October 21st 04, 05:03 AM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> An interesting idea, but somewhat at odds with the Biblical notional
> lifespan of three score and ten; average life expectancy is only 10%
> above that even now.

Hard to tell from old writings. We know that in cultures without birth
records and where the old are venerated, people commonly exaggerate their
age more and more as they get older. It is also possible with a warmer
climate in the mid east religious centers life was extended with better
health and the cultures insisted on a clean body. Again, just my guess.

Life span could mean several things. At this time the human life span is
120 years in the sense that 120 is essentially the oldest anyone lives.

And (on-topic) regular cyclists have a higher
> average life expectancy than those who rely more heavily on
> oil-powered transport :-)

Actually there has been recent discussions on this topic in uk.transport
from data collected in Great Brittan. The data shows that car drivers live
longer than transit users. Part of the cause appears to be that higher
income people live longer than low income people.

Don't think they say anything about bikes. The exercise from bikes will
produce little life extension. The exercise will make you feel better and
give you a better chance of being health into old age as long as you
continue to exercise. Of course the bike is not relevant. Exercise is what
is important.

I personally use a professional grade trampoline in my back yard which I
consider better exercise than riding my bike. I live across the street from
the SF Bay shoreline where there is a bike path that does not cross roads,
but I still prefer the trampoline.

Just zis Guy, you know?
October 21st 04, 11:59 AM
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:03:06 GMT, "Jack May" >
wrote:

>Actually there has been recent discussions on this topic in uk.transport

Oh I bet that was balanced and informative, in typical uk.tosspot
style ;-)

>from data collected in Great Brittan. The data shows that car drivers live
>longer than transit users. Part of the cause appears to be that higher
>income people live longer than low income people.

s/Part/All/ I'd say :-)

>Don't think they say anything about bikes. The exercise from bikes will
>produce little life extension. The exercise will make you feel better and
>give you a better chance of being health into old age as long as you
>continue to exercise. Of course the bike is not relevant. Exercise is what
>is important.

According to Mayer Hillman and the BMA, the exercise form cycling
actually does produce significantly longer life, and there appears to
be more benfit from exercise integrated into daily living (i.e.
walking and cycling) than from going to the gym. I think it is
because cyclists will tend to exercise at a lower percentage of MHR
but for longer, whereas gym rats tend to sustain a higher percentage
of MHR in intervals of 10 or 15 minutes at a time. don't know how it
compares with, say, circuit training. I love circuits, me :-)

>I personally use a professional grade trampoline in my back yard which I
>consider better exercise than riding my bike. I live across the street from
>the SF Bay shoreline where there is a bike path that does not cross roads,
>but I still prefer the trampoline.

I prefer the bike because I get exercise for free in time I would
otherwise have wasted being frustrated in a car :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home