Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that paints
a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil. Seems finding
decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I should be learning
those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a wide spectrum of folks
here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
Cheers!
Dukester
>I know there is a wide spectrum of folks here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
Since you asked for thoughts, I'll toss out a few, in mostly random
order...
We're using oil a LOT faster than it's being formed, therefore oil (or
coal, or nat gas, or any carbon-based fuel source and their
derivatives) will only get rarer and more expensive. Therefore, we
should strive to conserve what we do use, and use alternatives when
possible.
The only continual input of energy to this planet is sunlight. Oil etc
is stored energy from sunlight that hit the earth many many years ago,
and though it's the easiest way to get energy right now, it obviously
won't last forever at today's rate of use. I've seen conflicting data
on exactly when we will (or did) reach a peak in oil production, but
unless we do something drastic, we will eventually run out, or far more
likely, oil will get far more expensive than alternatives. I don't
think it will be a sudden point causing a societal crash, but probably
more of a gradual increase in prices and a distinct shift to
alternative energy sources. I've heard various and conflicting
opinions on how grim the future will be after oil gets too expensive to
be practial, what will happen to our industrialized societies, etc.
One quote I've heard suggests that just as the stone age didn't end for
lack of stone, the oil age won't end for lack of oil.
At the moment, more sustainable alternatives (i.e. energy comes more
directly from the sun) include biomass, geothermal, passive solar for
heating, wind, hydro (rivers or wave/tidal systems), and direct solar
(photovoltaic). Nuclear has it's own set of pros and cons, which I
think are somewhat distinct from the rest of that list. There are lots
of conflicts on which of those are the best/most efficient/most
practical, but we'll need to move away from oil somehow.
Many of us (including NY and several other states) now have the option
of buying electricity from "green" sources, which is an excellent and
easy way to offset our use of oil without making sacrifices other than
a few cents per kilowatt hour.
Another thing to think about in terms of practical everyday
conservation choices is food - it takes a lot more grain to make a
pound of beef than a pound of chicken, and a lot more grain to make a
pound of chicken than a pound of veggies/bread/etc. All that grain
requires land, planting, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation,
harvesting, transportation, and all the oil needed to run all those
processes. I'm not a strict vegetarian, but we need to remember that
our food choices have an affect on the earth too.
Overall, I'd say the most significant things for individuals to
consider in terms of oil conservation are personal transportation and
home appliances/heating - there are a variety of ways to conserve in
each of those areas, some easy and some requiring more sacrifices. As
for woodworkers, the amount of wood used in most of our projects and
the amount of electricity used for most of our tools is probably pretty
insignificant compared to the amount of energy used by our vehicles or
air conditioners or furnaces. I love hand tools, but energy
conservation isn't a primary consideration when making a purchase or
creating a project.
Phew - sorry that got long-winded. Thanks for the post - whatever gets
people thinking is a step in the right direction.
Andy
Dukes909 wrote:
> Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
> the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that paints
> a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
Those same people that predict peak oil in 2013 are the same people
that predicted peak oil in 1995, and 1985, and 1975.....
> The only continual input of energy to this planet is sunlight.
Don't forget wind power. Of course, environmentalists are now against
wind power now that it's becoming viable in certain parts of the
country. Birds sometimes fly into them, they take up land, etc. Same
thing happened with hydroelectric power. Environmentalists where all
gung ho, now claim that it interferes with Salmon. I'm sure it would
happen with Solar if we had acres and acres of solar panels. Some
habitat would be destroyed.
Hydrogen, when burned, produces water vapor, which in turn can be
changed back into hydrogen.
> I've seen conflicting data
> on exactly when we will (or did) reach a peak in oil production, but
> unless we do something drastic, we will eventually run out, or far more
> likely, oil will get far more expensive than alternatives.
At which time the alernatives will take over, and people will buy
products that use them since it will be cheaper to operate. The market
will work.
> I don't
> think it will be a sudden point causing a societal crash, but probably
> more of a gradual increase in prices and a distinct shift to
> alternative energy sources.
Absolutely.
> Another thing to think about in terms of practical everyday
> conservation choices is food - it takes a lot more grain to make a
> pound of beef than a pound of chicken, and a lot more grain to make a
> pound of chicken than a pound of veggies/bread/etc. All that grain
> requires land, planting, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation,
> harvesting, transportation, and all the oil needed to run all those
> processes.
While that may be true, don't forget to add "how many people get to
eat" into whatever equation you're coming up with. That's not exactly
a trivial thing.
"Dukes909" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
> the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that
> paints a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
> Seems finding decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I
> should be learning those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a
> wide spectrum of folks here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
>
> Cheers!
> Dukester
I normally don't respond to too many OT threads but come on! We have been
hearing about running out of oil by;
in the 60s' it was predicted to be in the 80s' -
in the 70s' it was predicted to be in the 90s' -
in the 90s' it was predicted to be in the 2010' -
Now the just announced a 200 year supply found in Canada!??!
We as a society will provide a new technolociagal method for replacing oil
long before it runs out.
JMHO
Back to making sawdust!
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Larry Bud wrote:
> > The only continual input of energy to this planet is sunlight.
>
> Don't forget wind power.
Which is solar.
> ...
>
> Hydrogen, when burned, produces water vapor, which in turn can be
> changed back into hydrogen.
Which is precisely why hydrogen is not viable a source of energy, at
least not until controlled fusion technology becomes practical
Practical controlled fusion is estimated to be 25 years in the future,
as it has been for the last 50 years.
--
FF
Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Global warming would be too mild a term for the result. Imagine the
> consequences of limitless free energy ending up as atmospheric heat
> (put there by billions of happy consumers)...
>
> ...
Not a problem.
Meaning no disrespect to you personally but that statement
illustrates a profound ignorance of the causes of global change.
Hopefully that statement was made in jest.
If the Earth's albedo stays the same then a sllight rise in global
temperature would result in the excess heat radiating off into
space at a slightly higher rate. So long as the Earth's albedo
stays the same the equilibrium temperature stays the same.
But if the Earth's albedo drops due to a change in the composition
of the atmosphere, say for example, by increasing the carbon dioxide
and methane then thermal equilibirum will only be achieved at a
higher temperature--the aptly-named greenhouse effect, so the
Earth's temperature will rise to that higher equilibrium temperature.
The energy we liberate from storage or otherwise create and dump
into the atmosphere is unimportant as it jas no effect on the
equilibrium
temperature.
Global warming is predicted by the observed changes in atmospheric
composition and NOT by historical trends in temperature. Most
people do not understand that because most people do not understand
the principle of conservation of energy.
--
FF
George wrote:
>
> ...
>
> The media coined the pejorative "big oil" as they coined the phrase "big
> tobacco" which you obligingly keep parroting. Ever hear of "little oil," or
> only "the little guy?" This is how they manipulate fools and sell their
> product - by telling paranoids what they want to hear, even such obvious
> half truths like citing "record profits" when the return on investment is
> actually less, only the dollars are more. The strings jerking your leg are
> pulled by the media with your consent.
>
> These are energy companies. They sell what they can get a return on, and
> invest in oil exploration and fund research into alternatives as well.
British Petroleum bought Solarex, a solar cell research,
developement and manufacturing company with a facility
(The Solar Breeder) North of Washington DC. Every time I
drive by, it's still there. I think if BP can make money
selling photovoltaic cells they will and if they cannot they
will sell the company.
OTOH there is no return on investment on 'free' energy since,
being free, you can't get anyone to pay for it. OTOH there is
no such thing as free energy so that's not a problem.
> Since they live in the real world, they can't spin giant fantasies about
> conspiracy and the energy density and safety of hydrogen. Those who are
> willing to think will recognize water vapor as a "greenhouse gas" as
> well....
Of course anyone familiar with the properties of common gases
understands that water is much more rapidly removed from the
atmosphere than is carbon dioxide or methane.
--
FF
Morris Dovey wrote:
> [email protected] (in
> [email protected]) said:
>
> | Morris Dovey wrote:
> ||
> || ...
> ||
> || Global warming would be too mild a term for the result. Imagine the
> || consequences of limitless free energy ending up as atmospheric heat
> || (put there by billions of happy consumers)...
> ||
> || ...
> |
> | Not a problem.
> |
> | Meaning no disrespect to you personally but that statement
> | illustrates a profound ignorance of the causes of global change.
> | Hopefully that statement was made in jest.
>
> Not jest - just plain and simple ignorance with a dose of uncertain
> logic.
>
> | If the Earth's albedo stays the same then a sllight rise in global
> | temperature would result in the excess heat radiating off into
> | space at a slightly higher rate. So long as the Earth's albedo
> | stays the same the equilibrium temperature stays the same.
>
> (Oh well - off-topic for a penny, off-topic for a pound.) I thought
> albedo had to do with the reflection of energy not originating on/in
> the planet
Albedo is the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy. The
energy not reflected is absorbed, raising the temperature of the
body. The rate at which the body radiates energy is proportionate
to the fourth power of its temperature. So the temperature of
the body rises until the energy it radiates away is equal to
the difference between the incident and reflected energy.
At that temperature there is equilibrium between the rate at
which the body absorbs energy and the rate at which it
radiates energy.
> - and I thought I understood that albedo could be altered
> significantly by small planetary temperature changes causing shrinkage
> or enlargement of our ice caps. What did I miss (or misunderstand)?
Ice snow and clouds also affect albedo.
> |
> | But if the Earth's albedo drops due to a change in the composition
> | of the atmosphere, say for example, by increasing the carbon dioxide
> | and methane then thermal equilibirum will only be achieved at a
> | higher temperature--the aptly-named greenhouse effect, so the
> | Earth's temperature will rise to that higher equilibrium
> | temperature.
>
> I can understand that. Are you also saying that androp in albedo can
> _only_ come about as a consequence of changing the composition, or are
> other causes also possible?
As you noted, ice and snow affect albedo and so do clouds. But
ice snow and clouds change rapdily. The concentration of Carbon
dioxide and methane in the atmosphere changes much more slowly.
>
> | The energy we liberate from storage or otherwise create and dump
> | into the atmosphere is unimportant as it jas no effect on the
> | equilibrium temperature.
>
> I'm having difficulty accepting this - mostly because I can imagine a
> scenario in which heat is created faster than it can bleed off...
Then the temperature would, indeed, rise. However it would
only have ot rise a little to radiate off that excess heat.
The total solar energy incident on the Earth is orders of
magnitude higher than how much energy we use. I would
be astonished if a 1% drop in albedo would not raise the
Earth's temperature more than a hundredfold increase in energy use.
>
> | Global warming is predicted by the observed changes in atmospheric
> | composition and NOT by historical trends in temperature. Most
> | people do not understand that because most people do not understand
> | the principle of conservation of energy.
>
> Hmm - ok. I tend to think of it as the principle of conservation of
> mass /and/ energy (although I don't think anyone has yet figured out
> how to convert energy into mass.)
>
--
FF
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Also, ;~) big oil would never let "free energy " happen.
Maybe not intentionally, but if they don't heavily buy into the technology
for free energy, it *will* happen sooner than later unless some natural or
manmade catastrophe destroys the bulk of humanity.
"Dukes909" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
> the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that
> paints a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
> Seems finding decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I
> should be learning those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a
> wide spectrum of folks here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
>
I'm old enough to remember the same groups predicting the end of petroleum
by 1980/90/2000 .
When oil hits $60/bbl, someone (not the US, of course) will begin
hydrogenating carbon stored as coal. When the lights dim, we'll build some
nuclear plants.
Doesn't anyone remember the 70s. There was an oil shortage, long line-ups at
the pumps, prices climbed from 25 cents per gallon up to over a dollar,
causing problems for gas stations that didn't have that third digit on the
pumps. Oil companies cried the blues that they needed to be able to drill in
the gulf of Mexico. They got approval, and suddenly there was lots of gas,
oil and other oil products (within a short time span, but not long enough to
explore and drill new wells), but the price NEVER went back down. Now we are
getting the same stories about shortages while the oil companies are
breaking records for profits on every quarter. It smacks of an excuse to
charge as much as possible for the oil to boost profits and management
bonuses even higher.
Then there are the "hidden" oil wells. I worked for a gas utility that owned
a drilling company that was looking for natural gas under lake Erie, south
of Ontario, Canada and north of New York and Pennsylvania states. They found
lots of natural gas, but also found a reasonable amount of oil. Regulations
required that all oil wells be capped under Lake Erie. These wells sit there
with no oil being extracted. How many other hidden oil wells are there
throughout North America?
"Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dukes909 wrote:
> > Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think
about
> > the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that
paints
> > a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
>
> Those same people that predict peak oil in 2013 are the same people
> that predicted peak oil in 1995, and 1985, and 1975.....
>
Larry Bud wrote:
>
> > The only continual input of energy to this planet is sunlight.
>
> Don't forget wind power. Of course, environmentalists are now against
> wind power now that it's becoming viable in certain parts of the
> country. Birds sometimes fly into them, they take up land, etc. Same
> thing happened with hydroelectric power. Environmentalists where all
> gung ho, now claim that it interferes with Salmon. I'm sure it would
> happen with Solar if we had acres and acres of solar panels. Some
> habitat would be destroyed.
Indeed.
Distributed PV is ok since it can occupy existing roof space. Tidal /
wave generation systems aren't bad since the energy density available is
so high that they don't need to occupy large areas. Nuclear is also a
good option since while it is not "renewable", it is safe, compact,
efficient, long lasting and unlike fossil fuels pumping pollution into
the atmosphere every day, the waste is compact and can be readily
returned to underground where it originally came from.
>
> Hydrogen, when burned, produces water vapor, which in turn can be
> changed back into hydrogen.
Hydrogen is essentially an energy storage medium, not an energy source.
You need to find a power source to power the hydrogen production first.
Pete C.
Leon wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You need to find a power source to power the hydrogen production first.
>
> What are you saying here? My neighbor is for the 3rd time overseeing the
> construction of a hydrogen producing facility in South East Texas. This
> being the 3rd that he has worked on I suspect that a power source for
> producing hydrogen has been accomplished.
Nope. The only two common ways to produce hydrogen that I'm aware of are
to process it our of nat gas or electrolysis to separate it from water.
With nat gas you are still relying on a processed fossil fuel and from
water requires large amounts of electricity to produce the hydrogen and
has low efficiency.
Perhaps electrolysis of hydrogen might be a reasonable thing to do to
recover / store some excess power generation from off peak times or
intermittent sources like wind or solar. For production of hydrogen as
an energy carrier for use in say vehicles about the only practical
sources of the energy are nuclear or tidal / wave power.
Pete C.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Anyway, the oil companies sure seem to have *every* media outlet on their
>> side.
>
> I think the "media" is on the oil and gas company payroll. The media
> anounces price hikes and true to their anouncements the price of fuel goes
> up. It is the "only" thing that the media is always correct about. I
> wish that they were half as correct about the weather.
>
The media coined the pejorative "big oil" as they coined the phrase "big
tobacco" which you obligingly keep parroting. Ever hear of "little oil," or
only "the little guy?" This is how they manipulate fools and sell their
product - by telling paranoids what they want to hear, even such obvious
half truths like citing "record profits" when the return on investment is
actually less, only the dollars are more. The strings jerking your leg are
pulled by the media with your consent.
These are energy companies. They sell what they can get a return on, and
invest in oil exploration and fund research into alternatives as well.
Since they live in the real world, they can't spin giant fantasies about
conspiracy and the energy density and safety of hydrogen. Those who are
willing to think will recognize water vapor as a "greenhouse gas" as
well....
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Those who are
>> willing to think will recognize water vapor as a "greenhouse gas" as
>> well....
>
> Of course anyone familiar with the properties of common gases
> understands that water is much more rapidly removed from the
> atmosphere than is carbon dioxide or methane.
>
Au contraire. As the temperature warms, the synergy of greater carrying
capacity begins....
om/DeSoto
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > You need to find a power source to power the hydrogen production
first.
|
| What are you saying here? My neighbor is for the 3rd time
overseeing the
| construction of a hydrogen producing facility in South East Texas.
This
| being the 3rd that he has worked on I suspect that a power source
for
| producing hydrogen has been accomplished.
I think he's alluding to the fact that it takes more energy to produce
the hydrogen than can be recovered when it's used as fuel.
The point is that hydrogen isn't a source of "free" energy. It's a way
of storing (most of) the energy used to produce it.
We need to be careful what we wish for. If we had a fundamental
breakthrough that made "free" energy available to all, the absolutely
certain result would be extinction of all life on the planet.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.c
"dnoyeB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well consider the marketing. If they can convince you oil is running out,
> then you will be more accepting of their high prices. In USA it has
> already been established that oil is abundant, its gasoline thats not.
Exactly. I have been very suspect of all these oil company mergers that
have been going on the last 5 to 10 years. In the Houston area there were
some 8 to 10 major brand filling stations on the late 80's. Now that
variety has narrowed down to about 4. If you eleminate half the competition
and close half the refineries you have the excuse for the gasoline shortage
and the reason gasoline is going up in price. Additionally all the friggin
"SpecialNeeds" of the major cities that require specially formulated
gasoline for all the seasons chokes production also.
> Anyway, the oil companies sure seem to have *every* media outlet on their
> side.
I think the "media" is on the oil and gas company payroll. The media
anounces price hikes and true to their anouncements the price of fuel goes
up. It is the "only" thing that the media is always correct about. I wish
that they were half as correct about the weather.
If the price of oil raises, media is more than happy to
> fill in some non-sensical justification and pass it to the public as fact.
> No unlike stock analyst that talk in firm voices using strong words and
> thing that adds firmness and strength to their guesswork...
It would seem so.
Leon wrote:
> "Dukes909" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
>>the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that
>>paints a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
>>Seems finding decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I
>>should be learning those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a
>>wide spectrum of folks here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
>
>
>
> I was listening to an interview of an Exxon exec on a talk radio station a
> couple of days ago. He was trying to make people think that Exxon does not
> have a lot to do with oil compared to the rest of the oil companies. He
> indicated that Exxon only pumps 3% of all oil out of the ground. That may
> very well be true. What he did not say was how much oil that Exxon actually
> comes into contact with and sells.
> Anyway, he said that with "today's" technology we can extract 3 trillion
> barrels of oil from existing sources. More with more advanced technology.
> Then he said, to put this into perspective, from the beginning when
> drilling for oil started many years ago the world has consumed 1 trillion
> barrels of oil. Basically, with today's technology, we have only extracted
> 1/4 of the available oil.
> Seems to me that the price of oil should stabilize.
>
>
Well consider the marketing. If they can convince you oil is running
out, then you will be more accepting of their high prices. In USA it
has already been established that oil is abundant, its gasoline thats not.
Anyway, the oil companies sure seem to have *every* media outlet on
their side. If the price of oil raises, media is more than happy to
fill in some non-sensical justification and pass it to the public as
fact. No unlike stock analyst that talk in firm voices using strong
words and thing that adds firmness and strength to their guesswork...
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> I suspect that big oil will let some one else come up with the
>> technology
>> and then buy that company and put the patents and knowledge into file 13.
>
> You're probably right about that, but considering the increasing need for
> energy I can't see any single company being able to hold onto the rights
> to
> free energy for a sustained period. There's too many people around the
> world
> who don't subscribe to patent law. Even in countries that do, use software
> piracy as an example. Once the cat's out of the bag, it will never be in
> there again.
Hopefully that is true however we will probably watch the rest of the world
prosper as a result. Although the rest of the world probably pays cheap
prices for software by disregarding patent laws we still pay the price for
that technology. I suspect that we will pay the price for cheaper fuel
technology also.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think he's alluding to the fact that it takes more energy to produce
> the hydrogen than can be recovered when it's used as fuel.
I see. thanks.
snip
> We need to be careful what we wish for. If we had a fundamental
> breakthrough that made "free" energy available to all, the absolutely
> certain result would be extinction of all life on the planet.
Well I don't see your logic there unless you are referring to the second
coming, but I do believe that if it happened all of a sudden that the world
economy would be totally devastated, which could lead to the extinction of
all life on the planet. ;~)
Also, ;~) big oil would never let "free energy " happen.
"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You need to find a power source to power the hydrogen production first.
What are you saying here? My neighbor is for the 3rd time overseeing the
construction of a hydrogen producing facility in South East Texas. This
being the 3rd that he has worked on I suspect that a power source for
producing hydrogen has been accomplished.
"Dukes909" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
> the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that
> paints a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil.
> Seems finding decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I
> should be learning those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a
> wide spectrum of folks here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
I was listening to an interview of an Exxon exec on a talk radio station a
couple of days ago. He was trying to make people think that Exxon does not
have a lot to do with oil compared to the rest of the oil companies. He
indicated that Exxon only pumps 3% of all oil out of the ground. That may
very well be true. What he did not say was how much oil that Exxon actually
comes into contact with and sells.
Anyway, he said that with "today's" technology we can extract 3 trillion
barrels of oil from existing sources. More with more advanced technology.
Then he said, to put this into perspective, from the beginning when
drilling for oil started many years ago the world has consumed 1 trillion
barrels of oil. Basically, with today's technology, we have only extracted
1/4 of the available oil.
Seems to me that the price of oil should stabilize.
[email protected] (in
[email protected]) said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| ...
||
|| Global warming would be too mild a term for the result. Imagine the
|| consequences of limitless free energy ending up as atmospheric heat
|| (put there by billions of happy consumers)...
||
|| ...
|
| Not a problem.
|
| Meaning no disrespect to you personally but that statement
| illustrates a profound ignorance of the causes of global change.
| Hopefully that statement was made in jest.
Not jest - just plain and simple ignorance with a dose of uncertain
logic.
| If the Earth's albedo stays the same then a sllight rise in global
| temperature would result in the excess heat radiating off into
| space at a slightly higher rate. So long as the Earth's albedo
| stays the same the equilibrium temperature stays the same.
(Oh well - off-topic for a penny, off-topic for a pound.) I thought
albedo had to do with the reflection of energy not originating on/in
the planet - and I thought I understood that albedo could be altered
significantly by small planetary temperature changes causing shrinkage
or enlargement of our ice caps. What did I miss (or misunderstand)?
|
| But if the Earth's albedo drops due to a change in the composition
| of the atmosphere, say for example, by increasing the carbon dioxide
| and methane then thermal equilibirum will only be achieved at a
| higher temperature--the aptly-named greenhouse effect, so the
| Earth's temperature will rise to that higher equilibrium
| temperature.
I can understand that. Are you also saying that androp in albedo can
_only_ come about as a consequence of changing the composition, or are
other causes also possible?
| The energy we liberate from storage or otherwise create and dump
| into the atmosphere is unimportant as it jas no effect on the
| equilibrium temperature.
I'm having difficulty accepting this - mostly because I can imagine a
scenario in which heat is created faster than it can bleed off...
| Global warming is predicted by the observed changes in atmospheric
| composition and NOT by historical trends in temperature. Most
| people do not understand that because most people do not understand
| the principle of conservation of energy.
Hmm - ok. I tend to think of it as the principle of conservation of
mass /and/ energy (although I don't think anyone has yet figured out
how to convert energy into mass.)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
[email protected] (in
[email protected]) said:
| British Petroleum bought Solarex, a solar cell research,
| developement and manufacturing company with a facility
| (The Solar Breeder) North of Washington DC. Every time I
| drive by, it's still there. I think if BP can make money
| selling photovoltaic cells they will and if they cannot they
| will sell the company.
BP seems to be doing a bit of "foreward thinking". They and a couple
of other petrobizies seem to be actively searching the web for
alternative energy technologies. I've found their willingness to
"think outside the pipeline" somewhat encouraging.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nope. The only two common ways to produce hydrogen that I'm aware of are
> to process it our of nat gas or electrolysis to separate it from water.
> With nat gas you are still relying on a processed fossil fuel and from
> water requires large amounts of electricity to produce the hydrogen and
> has low efficiency.
The production facilities are in the middle of one of the largest oil
refining areas in the country. They are indeed producing and going to
produce hydrogen as a finished product. Perhaps not at a lesser cost than
simply refining oil into gasoline but it is happening. There are fleets of
vehicles using hydrogen currently. IIRC BMW is scheduled to offer an engine
that will run on gasoline or hydrogen.
I'll see if the company my neighbor works for has a web site with any
pertinent information regarding the project that they are working on in the
Texas City area.
>
> Perhaps electrolysis of hydrogen might be a reasonable thing to do to
> recover / store some excess power generation from off peak times or
> intermittent sources like wind or solar. For production of hydrogen as
> an energy carrier for use in say vehicles about the only practical
> sources of the energy are nuclear or tidal / wave power.
>
> Pete C.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The point is that hydrogen isn't a source of "free" energy. It's a way
> of storing (most of) the energy used to produce it.
*Tips hat to Mr. Dovey.*
Hydrogen is being used as a political football. The new buzz-word of
energy conservationists.
But I do see its uses. Build a few healthy heavy water nukes, and
electrolysis will give us an abundance of low-cost, transportable
hydrogen.. but.. but.. the by-product of electrolysis is.. *gasp*
oxygen!! Too much oxygen makes people light-headed and silly!
That stuff can turn you into a football player!!
Body-checking at the grocery store check-out!!
This cannot be tolerated!!
Oxygen will kill us all!... AND the spotted owls!!
GOD, what have we done?
*fades to black*
Btw... even though it is 20+ years old... it is one helluva read:
The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear.
r
=o)
Leon (in [email protected]) said:
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| We need to be careful what we wish for. If we had a fundamental
|| breakthrough that made "free" energy available to all, the
|| absolutely certain result would be extinction of all life on the
|| planet.
|
| Well I don't see your logic there unless you are referring to the
| second coming, but I do believe that if it happened all of a
| sudden that the world economy would be totally devastated, which
| could lead to the extinction of all life on the planet. ;~)
Global warming would be too mild a term for the result. Imagine the
consequences of limitless free energy ending up as atmospheric heat
(put there by billions of happy consumers)...
| Also, ;~) big oil would never let "free energy " happen.
If the breakthrough actually happened, I'm not sure that anyone could
prevent its use. :-(
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Also, ;~) big oil would never let "free energy " happen.
>
> Maybe not intentionally, but if they don't heavily buy into the technology
> for free energy, it *will* happen sooner than later unless some natural or
> manmade catastrophe destroys the bulk of humanity.
>
I suspect that big oil will let some one else come up with the technology
and then buy that company and put the patents and knowledge into file 13.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> I suspect that big oil will let some one else come up with the technology
> and then buy that company and put the patents and knowledge into file 13.
You're probably right about that, but considering the increasing need for
energy I can't see any single company being able to hold onto the rights to
free energy for a sustained period. There's too many people around the world
who don't subscribe to patent law. Even in countries that do, use software
piracy as an example. Once the cat's out of the bag, it will never be in
there again.
Leon wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I think he's alluding to the fact that it takes more energy to produce
>>the hydrogen than can be recovered when it's used as fuel.
>
>
> I see. thanks.
>
> snip
>
>
>
>>We need to be careful what we wish for. If we had a fundamental
>>breakthrough that made "free" energy available to all, the absolutely
>>certain result would be extinction of all life on the planet.
>
>
> Well I don't see your logic there unless you are referring to the second
> coming, but I do believe that if it happened all of a sudden that the world
> economy would be totally devastated, which could lead to the extinction of
> all life on the planet. ;~)
>
> Also, ;~) big oil would never let "free energy " happen.
>
>
Actually "Big Oil" is doing their part to facilitate the developement of
alternative energy sources by raising their prices. Kind of like what
Comcast is doing to facilitate me getting a satellite dish...
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:25:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> om/DeSoto
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > You need to find a power source to power the hydrogen production
> first.
> |
> | What are you saying here? My neighbor is for the 3rd time
> overseeing the
> | construction of a hydrogen producing facility in South East Texas.
> This
> | being the 3rd that he has worked on I suspect that a power source
> for
> | producing hydrogen has been accomplished.
>
> I think he's alluding to the fact that it takes more energy to produce
> the hydrogen than can be recovered when it's used as fuel.
>
> The point is that hydrogen isn't a source of "free" energy. It's a way
> of storing (most of) the energy used to produce it.
>
> We need to be careful what we wish for. If we had a fundamental
> breakthrough that made "free" energy available to all, the absolutely
> certain result would be extinction of all life on the planet.
And the interesting thing about Hydrogen is that it likes to combine with
stuff which can make it somewhat problematic to store. The nice thing
about gasoline is it's ease of storage. I think I heard they've got some
solutions to distributing and storing Hydrogen as a fuel. Question is how
good are these solutions compared to gas? What's the cost trade off?
D.G. Adams
"Dukes909" <[email protected]> writes:
> Totally off topic but curious what other ww'ers here know and think about
> the "peak oil" thing. I'm reading a book, "The Long Emergency" that paints
> a very grim picture of the future after the era of cheap oil. Seems finding
> decent lumber will be the least of our worries. Maybe I should be learning
> those hand tool skills after all! I know there is a wide spectrum of folks
> here and would like to hear some opinions on it.
Plant an apple tree.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23