I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Quote:
How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?
Before he passed, I asked Dr. Smalley if he thought the advances mankind needed to solve for hydrocarbon depletion were engineering challenges, or if primary science breakthroughs were necessary.
His response was "Primary science breakthroughs were needed."
The problem of course, is you can't "purchase" these advances. No amount of money can guarantee these advances on a schedule.
Worse, new developments are not always in series.
New developments are often a jigsaw puzzle where a "body of discovery" is needed to make specific advances.
Which makes exotic new energy technologies problematic.
It's this central fact that seems to escape the economists who argue that higher oil prices stimulate new energy technologies.
Sure they do...
But not in the simplistic way our cornucopian counter-parts envision.
It's not just about our intentions & hard work, it's also about smart people, doing creative work, over long periods of time.
And there is no guarantee of success.
... or of failure. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Academic institutions/industrial R&D should simply do their job while FF are still around.
They may or may not find satisfactory solutions to PO related problems.
Ultracapacitor technology coupled with expensive (but still feasible) commercial fusion reactors may just do the trick.
If they find it on time - fine
If they find it but late - some hardship will come, but still fine
If they fail - well we will go back to 18 century socioeconomic setup if we are lucky.
However continuation of exponential growth for ever according to current economy paradigm has no future IMO at least.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Quote:
Ultracapacitor technology coupled with expensive (but still feasible) commercial fusion reactors
According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
As far as commercial fusion... what are you talking about?
No such animal I'm afraid.
It's hubris that causes the problem.
As "professionals" like doctors & lawyers for example, assume that because they are very skilled in their field, that same expertise applies to everything else.
They soon discover that their competence does not translate in a meaningful way outside their specific genre.
We assume that our expertise will lead to a solution... & yet decades after we walked on the moon, no wheels on our luggage.
Same thing here. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Aaron wrote:
Quote:
Ultracapacitor technology coupled with expensive (but still feasible) commercial fusion reactors
According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
As far as commercial fusion... what are you talking about?
No such animal I'm afraid.
It's hubris that causes the problem.
Writting about commercial fusion, I had referred to possible technolology of the future. I am well aware that currently the only "commercial" fusion device is an H-bomb.
I belive, that if we manage in the future to produce energy (say electricity) based on fusion, it will be more expensive than current FF energy.
Ultracapacitors:
If you are discussing "primary breakthrough in science", you must consider them.
Laws of physics are not forbidding their existance.
Last edited by EnergyUnlimited on Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Quote:
Ultracapacitor technology coupled with expensive (but still feasible) commercial fusion reactors
According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
As far as commercial fusion... what are you talking about?
No such animal I'm afraid.
It's hubris that causes the problem.
Writting about commercial fusion, I had referred to possible technolology of the future. I am well aware that currently the only "commercial" fusion device is an H-bomb.
Ultracapacitors:
If you are discussing "primary breakthrough in science", you must consider them.
Laws of physics are not forbidding their existance.
Not at all... but it remains theory at this point. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Quote:
According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
This is quite simply wrong. Ultracapacitors are on the market right now.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
mrflora wrote:
Quote:
According to the scientists who study physics, as opposed to companies marketing this idea, the failure of micron-level control in manufacturing techniques makes the ultra-capacitor a pipe-dream.
This is quite simply wrong. Ultracapacitors are on the market right now.
Regards,
M.R.F.
So are solar panels...
And wind power, BioWillie & the rest.
It's not about the profitability of the technology... we fully expect all energy technologies to make money, in light of the rising cost of conventional energy.
But it's an energy loser currently, as explained to my personally by Dr. Richard Smalley, and discussed as part of current hybrid car offerings.
Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer
As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren’t actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck, according to a report by CNW Marketing Research. The firm spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.
For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.
One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.
“If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. “But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.
“We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer’s selection of transportation,” says Spinella. “Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.”
“We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions,” Spinella said. “We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world.”
link _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
It may be the case, that society will have to accept something like $3 per mile driving expenses and adequate increase of transport price.
It is still better than to go back to rely on oxen.
An interesting combination of oxen/horses with ultracapacitor powered (means electric) HGV or emergency/military/rich mens vehicles.
This is likely to be our actual fate IMO.
The actual "solution" to PO may be to replace 10% of FF with biofuels, 30% with electricity and resign from 60% of our current transporting/travelling activities.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
It may be the case, that society will have to accept something like $3 per mile driving expenses and adequate increase of transport price.
It is still better than to go back to rely on oxen.
An interesting combination of oxen/horses with ultracapacitor powered (means electric) HGV or emergency/military/rich mens vehicles.
This is likely to be our actual fate IMO.
The actual "solution" to PO may be to replace 10% of FF with biofuels, 30% with electricity and resign from 60% of our current transporting/traveling activities.
But don't you think that some powerful countries won't just "resign themselves" to energy poverty?
They will be very tempted to solve their energy problems the same way they have for decades...
Don't we all already know the answer to this question?
Is there even the slightest doubt?
From memory...
Quote:
"I hope your right... I really do. Because just one of those things wiped out my my entire crew in less than 24 hours. And if the colonists found those eggs, there's no telling how many of them have been exposed."
_________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Aaron wrote:
...But don't you think that some powerful countries won't just "resign themselves" to energy poverty?
They will be very tempted to solve their energy problems the same way they have for decades...
Don't we all already know the answer to this question?
Is there even the slightest doubt?
Yes, I agree with you, but once all relevant resources of poor countries gone looted, the final solution to be accepted by default may still be something similar to my suggestion.
NB. If you read many of my posts on this forum, you will find that I am quite convinced about future involving authoritarian governments scenario with resource wars as likely consequences.
What I am trying to say here, that we will be forced at some point in not very distant future to restrict much of our activities, but with certain scientific progress (mainly in area of energy production but not only) our civilization may be able to save some part of current modernity/life standards.
But yes, this $3 per mile in private car will have to come (and within not too long time frame) as well as we may have to accept that 40% of our income will go to purchase food.
And this IMHO will be the case even if we manage to tap "inexhaustable" (but expensive) energy source, fusion alike for example.
If we do not manage it, than there will be a painful reversal to 18th century life style AT BEST.
Some small "islands of modernity" may however survive here and there even for centuries. Those would look like small armed communities assembled around remaining wind farms or something alike.
What scientists should work on very hard is how to manufacture in expensive energy environment critical construction materials (steel, aluminium, copper and many others) in sufficient amounts to provide replacement parts into critical energy producing and other critical infrastucture (would it be a wind farm, solar tower, fusion reactor or drinking water distribution network).
IMO this particular task is going to be a very difficult one in times to come.
How steel is going to be made on a reasonable scale once our coal is burned?
How "energy hog" materials like aluminium or high purity silicon are going to be manufactured, even if ores of those will never run out?
What about polymers?
Will we ever consider recovery of oil of EROEI<1 just to get raw material to produce those polymers?
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
That's funny, I just wrote a paper on that:
Texas enjoys a unique status in energy terms.
And also faces unique challenges.
As a native Texan myself, I have had the opportunity to observe the evolution of our state from the early 1970's through today. During this time Texas has experienced some rather remarkable changes, as events and ideas have marched from Beaumont to El Paso; Houston to Lubbock.
Texas has enjoyed strong economic growth through most of this time span, despite some devastating losses like Enron or the S&L scandals. Houston & Dallas in particular, & by extension the rest of the state, cemented our position as an International crossroads for the Petrochemical & Oil Industries. To this day, much of the commerce in global energy markets, takes place right here in Texas.
Texas is also unique in it's energy usage & infrastructure compared to the rest of America. Texas has it's own separate electrical grid for example. The rolling blackouts which swept the nation were never a real danger here, because of our separate system. This is typical of several key industries in Texas, including livestock & agriculture, manufacturing & processing, as well as transportation and shipping. Taken as a whole, Texas enjoys more "self-sufficiency" as a state than perhaps any other. The unique combination of geography & history has provided Texas with some singular opportunities to not only benefit our own state, but the entire nation.
Much has been written recently about hydrocarbon alternative technologies. As oil & gas prices skyrocket, suddenly energy technologies which seemed marginal, become more viable. But not all these alternatives are created equally. We must consider carefully the viability of each candidate technology based on it's merits overall, as opposed to a blanket policy which says that everything which is profitable, is desirable.
It's critical that we understand the context of the energy sources we consider pursuing, not just the novel technology itself. By this I mean that the "quality" of a given energy source is the final measure of it's viability. Lot's of things are potential sources of energy, from wood to Whale Oil, Coal, Oil & Gas, many things will burn. We need to be more discriminating about which one's we actually choose to exploit.
The other side of this equation is the certainty that we will be forced to make new energy choices going forward. There is no credible debate about the coming decline in conventional hydrocarbon production, only about the shape this event will take & it's duration. If you have not heard yet, our conventional sources of oil & gas are near their peak production levels right now, and experts expect declining production of these natural resources by 2025, or perhaps as soon as 2007. What this means in real terms is more expensive & less available conventional oil & gas from here on out. This unavoidable shift will dictate that we find new ways to replace these lost resources, or suffer the consequences.
I had the privilege of spending several hours interviewing the late Dr. Richard Smalley of Rice University's Carbon Nanotech Lab in Houston, & he shared some interesting observations with me. Among the topics we discussed, he explained his thinking on the entire group of hydrocarbon alternatives. His central point, was that oil & gas, are simply wonderful sources of energy. Very dense, packed with potential energy, in a safe, fluid form... the perfect fuel. Therefore when considering alternatives to natures wonder fuel, we are obliged to view these alternatives in the light of what they will be replacing.
Furthermore, we must consider how dependant a given technology is on existing sources of conventional hydrocarbon energy, to really understand how viable it is.
I won't rehash specifics that can be Googled easily, but will present my findings of current thinking on a per topic basis.
A clear net energy loser. It's profitable because of an economic condition, but it still takes more energy than it produces.
Hybrids (Electric car hybrids, fuel-cells)
Also energy losers. In fact recent studies indicate that hybrids consume as much energy as a Hummer because of their expensive manufacturing and part replacement schedules.
Wind
A marginal energy winner. Wind is low impact, low yield electricity production. Great for scaled, localized needs. Limited in large scale by geography.
Solar
Another marginal energy winner. The expense involved and exotic materials required make this a very limited technology, especially for large scale.
Hydro
A big energy winner, but severely limited by suitable locations.
Geothermal
Same problem as hydro.
Nuclear
A clear energy winner, nuclear is limited by the failure of breeder reactor technology to successfully reprocess spent fuel from conventional Uranium fueled reactors, without which nuclear is limited by available Uranium supplies.
Fusion
Not 1 watt of power has ever been produced by fusion.
What's left?
A collection of even less credible, marginal energy sources?
There is one massive energy source I didn't mention yet. And it's right under our noses.
What could it be?
It's Us!
Or rather it's our dogged reliance on ancient techniques for using our energy.
We lose over half the electricity we generate to the transmission process. We move this energy around our world using technologies which are basically the same we as have used for 150 years. Our inefficient use of oil based energy products is legendary. Our pursuit of the global economy with it's "3000 mile salads", has produced a vast network of machines which squander this energy in amazing quantities.
The problem isn't not enough energy... it's the exact opposite. We have had too much access to cheap energy for too long, and now we are in the position of owning an infrastructure which took decades to build, and requires enormous energy inputs to maintain.
It's this same problem which makes some of the oil alternatives I mentioned before losers. Solar is a great example; there's actually plenty of energy in sunlight alone to power everything forever. We just don't know how to use it efficiently.
I am confident that every possible oil alternative will have it's run in the marketplace over the coming years. Which begs the question about public policy. What course should our government endorse & pursue? What is the most important role of state & local governments in energy policy?
I assert that no marginal alternative energy sources will even begin to meet the coming energy needs for our world, until we find new ways to limit the waste of this energy. We could discover some giant oil field somewhere that was missed before, but unless we find ways to conserve this resource, it will have little effect in meeting our growing energy appetite.
What we really need are bright new minds to think new thoughts which we have not.
We need new ideas and an exchange of information to meet our energy challenges. And that means attracting new talent to the physical sciences. Physical science needs to be "sexy" again, to draw from among our children, the brightest minds to examine this energy trap we have gotten ourselves into.
As Dr. Smalley pointed out, Oil may well turn out to be simply the best overall energy source human science ever discovers. But given the decline of these resources being eminent, it is our moral obligation to try.
For Texas, that means taking advantage of our unique position in the energy sector, to revitalize the science behind those technologies. Without a serious academic push to provide more skilled scientists to work on these issues, there is a limit to how much money can be meaningfully spent on such research. It takes qualified people to conduct the studies which yield future results after all, so beyond their total capacity, further investments are all but meaningless.
There are no gigawatt solutions to terrawatt problems.
Aaron Dunlap
Peakoil.com _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Aaron wrote:
.. if he thought the advances mankind needed to solve for hydrocarbon depletion were engineering challenges, or if primary science breakthroughs were necessary.
His response was "Primary science breakthroughs were needed."
I have to say, your viewpoint is a little strange.
First you say that new basic real science is the only way to solve hydrocarbon depletion; then you spend copious paragraphs trying to decry scientists, 'professionals', and 'hubris' as at least part of the problem.
Seems to me like you are trying to argue yourself into a corner.
Maybe you'd like to consider that as 'the iron age didn't end through lack of iron', maybe our technological replacement for the oil age has already appeared, and been killed off. Maybe we had our chance.
The real difference about the age we live in is the lack of respect we show scientists, engineers and professionals. Starting in the 1950s we lost faith with technological advancement, and at the same time started to fund more sparingly, limit more, double think more. We got frightened because we didn't understand, and unfortunately that irrationality was allowed to win out.
The end result is that today there is less real basic science going on, much more evolution of the same old - same old. All of which wouldn't matter since although you don't seem to understand it, evolutionary development makes many of your dismissals of alternatives mute. However the one thing we really DID need, up working and providing energy and no CO2 has effectively been killed by that same lack of faith - fission power.
Think about it, timescale is right, characteristics are right, and safety wise it makes more sense than coal. But we've blown that one, and because of that we likely won't get the chance to perfect fusion. We didn't keep the faith, as you don't, and the rest will be history. _________________ Arcane Domain
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Academic institutions/industrial R&D should simply do their job while FF are still around.
We do not have the research facilities. If a solution is to be found to the energy problem, it can only come from a systematic fundamental R&D program.
Funding for the physical sciences is woefully inadequate.
Nuclear R&D for weapons gets the most money. The DOE plans to spend 6 and half times more on weapons than on conservation and renewable energy. The R&D is going into waging resource wars.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1839 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Aaron wrote:
Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer
Aaron, I agree with your larger point but I must respond to the 'dust to dust' article, as I believe that study is bogus. The numbers don't add up: if you do their math it turns out that it costs several hundred thousand dollars in non-fuel-related energy costs to manufacture and maintain a Honda or Toyota over its lifetime. None of us is spending that much on our vehicles, and neither are the manufacturers, junkers or recyclers. Also doing their math, it turns out that many of the vehicles wind up costing the manufacturers more in energy to make than they sold the vehicles for. Doubt it.
Two main inclusions are skewing their numbers:
1) They're including Research and Development costs per each vehicle. Clearly at this point the per-each R&D costs for hybrids are high. But as the production numbers go up and the technology matures, this cost will sink quickly. Doesn't make sense to include it as they did, and use that to claim that a Prius uses more energy than a Hummer. But since they are including R&D costs, I wonder if they included the military development costs for the Hummer?
2) They believe the Hummer will last 250,000 miles, and the hybrid only 100,000. This seriously messes up their cost per mile analysis. Anyone here ever owned a Toyota? The idea that an American-made vehicle will last 2 1/2 times as long as a Toyota is pretty absurd. The Prius easily makes it to 200,000 miles and beyond:
Total energy cycle energy use decreases for advanced powertrains & lightweight vehicles… Improved fuel economy offsets increase in vehicle cycle energy.
SAE International _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
coyote wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Study: a hybrid consumes more energy in lifetime than a Hummer
Aaron, I agree with your larger point but I must respond to the 'dust to dust' article, as I believe that study is bogus. The numbers don't add up: if you do their math it turns out that it costs several hundred thousand dollars in non-fuel-related energy costs to manufacture and maintain a Honda or Toyota over its lifetime. None of us is spending that much on our vehicles, and neither are the manufacturers, junkers or recyclers. Also doing their math, it turns out that many of the vehicles wind up costing the manufacturers more in energy to make than they sold the vehicles for. Doubt it.
Two main inclusions are skewing their numbers:
1) They're including Research and Development costs per each vehicle. Clearly at this point the per-each R&D costs for hybrids are high. But as the production numbers go up and the technology matures, this cost will sink quickly. Doesn't make sense to include it as they did, and use that to claim that a Prius uses more energy than a Hummer. But since they are including R&D costs, I wonder if they included the military development costs for the Hummer?
2) They believe the Hummer will last 250,000 miles, and the hybrid only 100,000. This seriously messes up their cost per mile analysis. Anyone here ever owned a Toyota? The idea that an American-made vehicle will last 2 1/2 times as long as a Toyota is pretty absurd. The Prius easily makes it to 200,000 miles and beyond:
Total energy cycle energy use decreases for advanced powertrains & lightweight vehicles… Improved fuel economy offsets increase in vehicle cycle energy.
I wonder if they included the military development costs for the Hummer?
lol... as far as I know internal combustion R&D is pretty well established stuff... while hybrids require brand-new R&D. Very expensive now and for some time to come.
Quote:
The idea that an American-made vehicle will last 2 1/2 times as long as a Toyota is pretty absurd. The Prius easily makes it to 200,000 miles and beyond:
The body will... but the power plant & battery etc... won't. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
