Itinerant Air-Cooled

Sorry to leave kind of immaturedly like that. No, I wasn't expecting any certain 'kind' of response, but Colin's threw me as I thought he either didn't read the entire article, or was futilely balking against the crushing tyranny of mathematics, or both. I see now that's not probably the case. (The 'Fail', incidentally, was directed toward myself, not Colin.)

Every bright idea ends up dimmed by clouds of reality.

Take industrial hemp. Versatile, fiber producing plant, oil, proteins, building materials, paper, clothing on and on. But there is the problem of the dust generated by processing and the negative health effects on workers in that environment which was a part of why, besides the legal attack, it was replaced by alternatives.

Sure, nuclear energy doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. But environmentally, eco-systems are able to stabilize and absorb greenhouse gasses much easier than radioactive waste with half-lives of centuries.

Current technologies already could radically alleviate the toxic impacts of energy collection and consumption, but those dip into profits, much as safety measures and efforts to prevent disasters, so here we are with fracking, insanely deep water drilling and mountain top removal touted as necessary, along with nuclear.

Just because reality paints a grim picture is no reason to sit on our hands because some feel "nothing can be done". With that approach, we are guaranteed nothing will be done. How much more dire would our circumstances be currently if efforts already made weren't. We've already come forward vastly in efficiencies of energy usage since our first concerns.

As for Jules Verne, I think the message there is that you'll never be flying into space unless you first express it and bring the idea into the world to pursue. There are always plenty of skeptics who claim "it can't be done". Where would we be if everyone believed them?


neal

Neal,

Probably I should make it clear that I'm generally a future-positive pro-technology; consequently I'm suspicious of claims about the future, principally because of the ingenuity of man and the speed of change. I'm not worried about power; I'm worried about greed. As you note, we have all the power we need, or will ever need at our fingertips. Accessing it and paying for it, as well as control, are the real issues.

Mike

I'll come out as the resident energy doomer, then. We've got issues. EROIE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

Physics is not my strong point, but I understand the "you don't get somethin fer nothin" law.

Ritter wrote:I'll come out as the resident energy doomer, then. We've got issues. EROIE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

Physics is not my strong point, but I understand the "you don't get somethin fer nothin" law.

Solar, geothermal and gravitational (i.e. tidal/hydroelectric) are all essentially free and unlimited.

Capturing the last 2 is simple in engineering terms, though there are issues with environment and so on.

Mike

Lanval wrote:

Ritter wrote:I'll come out as the resident energy doomer, then. We've got issues. EROIE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

Physics is not my strong point, but I understand the "you don't get somethin fer nothin" law.

Solar, geothermal and gravitational (i.e. tidal/hydroelectric) are all essentially free and unlimited.

Capturing the last 2 is simple in engineering terms, though there are issues with environment and so on.

Mike

Free and unlimited? Yes. Capable of replacing oil? No. The deal with oil (hydrocarbons in general) is that they represent a sink of millions of years of solar energy, magically compressed into a liquid/gas that we've figured a way to combust and make stuff move. It's like a freebe. Well, mostly. At least until it takes more energy to pump the stuff out than we get from burning it. Nothing else compares as far as energy return on investment. And all the other sources you mentioned require massive inputs of materials. PV panels, wind turbines and wave dealybobs don't grow on trees. We have to manufacture them. And transport them. And get the grid to them. And get the urban centers close enough to them that we don't lose most of the power during distribution.

Where I live, 80% of my electricity is sourced from geothermal. It's pretty much sustainable and renewable, provided someone puts in the capital to maintain the turbines, etc. But it's a local boon, not a global solution. Same with wind. Same with solar. Same with tide/wave. We are simply not set up to convert to those energy sources in a short time frame. Over several hundred years, maybe. But I don't think the oil energy fairy is going to keep us going that long. Her wings are getting tired and we just haven't managed to find more of the black gold.

Ritter wrote: Free and unlimited? Yes. Capable of replacing oil? No. The deal with oil (hydrocarbons in general) is that they represent a sink of millions of years of solar energy, magically compressed into a liquid/gas that we've figured a way to combust and make stuff move. It's like a freebe. Well, mostly. At least until it takes more energy to pump the stuff out than we get from burning it. Nothing else compares as far as energy return on investment. And all the other sources you mentioned require massive inputs of materials. PV panels, wind turbines and wave dealybobs don't grow on trees. We have to manufacture them. And transport them. And get the grid to them. And get the urban centers close enough to them that we don't lose most of the power during distribution.

Where I live, 80% of my electricity is sourced from geothermal. It's pretty much sustainable and renewable, provided someone puts in the capital to maintain the turbines, etc. But it's a local boon, not a global solution. Same with wind. Same with solar. Same with tide/wave. We are simply not set up to convert to those energy sources in a short time frame. Over several hundred years, maybe. But I don't think the oil energy fairy is going to keep us going that long. Her wings are getting tired and we just haven't managed to find more of the black gold.

I doubt that it is going to take us as long as hundreds of years, but a lot of this sounds like common sense to me.

BellePlaine wrote:

Ritter wrote: Free and unlimited? Yes. Capable of replacing oil? No. The deal with oil (hydrocarbons in general) is that they represent a sink of millions of years of solar energy, magically compressed into a liquid/gas that we've figured a way to combust and make stuff move. It's like a freebe. Well, mostly. At least until it takes more energy to pump the stuff out than we get from burning it. Nothing else compares as far as energy return on investment. And all the other sources you mentioned require massive inputs of materials. PV panels, wind turbines and wave dealybobs don't grow on trees. We have to manufacture them. And transport them. And get the grid to them. And get the urban centers close enough to them that we don't lose most of the power during distribution.

Where I live, 80% of my electricity is sourced from geothermal. It's pretty much sustainable and renewable, provided someone puts in the capital to maintain the turbines, etc. But it's a local boon, not a global solution. Same with wind. Same with solar. Same with tide/wave. We are simply not set up to convert to those energy sources in a short time frame. Over several hundred years, maybe. But I don't think the oil energy fairy is going to keep us going that long. Her wings are getting tired and we just haven't managed to find more of the black gold.

I doubt that it is going to take us as long as hundreds of years, but a lot of this sounds like common sense to me.

We're talking reconstruction of entire societies. Move the people to the power, so to speak. And to the food.