Not perpetual motion, but...

rexxz · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 27, 2006 Posts: 29

Do you think there is anything that might come very close? I don't mean that as a literal statement of course but what are the chances of having technology developed in the next few years that can produce an extremely efficient method for harnessing energy? Also, what is the most efficient form of energy production in today's world? I'm pretty curious on the matter.

gg3 · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Not perpetual motion, but...

Here's the answer you need, which isn't necessarily the same as the answer you're seeking:

1) Present methods of producing energy are more than adequate, however we are lagging seriously in getting them online and operating.

2) What you need is a method for storing or for making portable a source of energy for mobile uses.

--

In more detail:

1) Wind, nuclear fission, solar photovoltaic & solar thermal, and various efficiency measures such as in architectural design, are all more than sufficient to overcome much of the crunch caused by decline in petroleum resources.

The problem with the above is that we are hardly building as rapidly as we should be. For example: A utility-scale wind farm can be built in three years, a nuclear reactor in five. However, add the time needed to raise investors' money for these projects, and you end up adding two or three years additional time to each type of project. And then, add in the time spent dealing with NIMBYs, and that's another two to three years for each type of project. By the time you're done, the wind farm can take 7 - 9 years and the nuclear reactor 9 - 12 years.

If we had tolerated those types of delays for financing and NIMBYs in the production of ships, tanks, and airplanes during World War Two, we would all presently be greeting each other with "Heil Hitler!"

Jimmy Carter was right on target when he said we needed to face energy issues as if they were the "moral equivalent of war," i.e. with the ferocity and intensity of fighting for our lives.

2) The real technological problem we face is to develop effective portable fuel sources, i.e. something that can be carried onboard a moving vehicle. There are two issues here. One is range, i.e. how many miles before a refueling stop. Two is power, i.e. maximum speed and ability to operate auxiliary systems such as climate control (air conditioning is an issue of driver safety for commercial drivers) and power-takeoff applications on trucks (e.g. refrigerated vans, concrete mixers, and so on).

At present it would seem that these issues can be dealt with in a functional manner, though not to the likings of spoiled-brat consumer types, by a) moving as much passenger and freight traffic to rail as possible, b) improving local bus services using electric buses, c) using electric automobiles with limited range and speed for flexible local travel, d) traveling and moving-around less in general i.e. oldfashioned conservation, e) tolerating longer delivery times for supply chains for all manner of goods, f) allocating petroleum fuels and their most convenient replacements e.g. biodiesel, based on functional priorities e.g. police/fire/paramedic/etc., and g) moving as much work as possible into telecommute mode (i.e. all "office jobs") to reduce physical commuting to only those cases where a physical person was clearly needed at a physical place.

So for example your typical trip to another city would be: Electric taxi to nearest metro bus stop. Electric metro bus to nearest inter-urban rail station. Train (via whatever power source) to distant city. Then to metro bus, to taxi, and to destination.

Your typical local shopping trip would be: bicycle/tricycle or human/electric hybrid (search under "Twike" for an example), or electric car, to local Main Street shopping district; make a bunch of stops for groceries, hardware, etc., and then back home. In larger cities, local buses could handle this type of traffic.

---

However, all of the above will be rapidly turned to mush if we don't deal with the global climate emergency immediately. And, human population must rapidly come down to about 1/3 of current numbers, either by voluntary means, or by nature cleaning house. If you think PO is scary, do your research on these issues and good luck getting to sleep tonight.

NEOPO · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Not perpetual motion, but...

Using my hero Mr Matt savinar as an example - I use to go around saying "peak oil bitches!!" but now I say "peakoil and climate change bitches!!" Wink