Solve: the Energy Crisis

     In fact governments do not produce one drop of energy they consume it.
They can & do inhibit the growth & production of those who do produce energy by taxing it & regulating it &, in the case of oil, coal & nuclear, pass laws which have made it impractical to expand domestic production. 
     So just for fun see if you can figure out in the midst of current concerns about energy which of the following can come online the fastest with the most amount of energy to solve the problem. What are you willing to do to remove the current restrictions or pay for a NASA sized moon effort (OR WW-II survival effort) to get the energy online?
  1. Nuclear
  2. Removing restrictions on drilling for oil
  3. Removing restrictions on mining coal
  4. Implementing a Hydrogen economy
  5. Solar power
  6. Wind energy
  7. Wave power energy
  8. Hydro-electric
  9. Geo-thermic
  10. Biofuel development
  11. Novel fuel cells other than Hydrogen
  12. Methane Hydrate (frozen methane in Gulf)
  13. Lightning
  14. ?  

Tags

  1. energy

Comments


Mark de LA says
Some clues can actually be found here, but they do not answer the exact question in the item.

Mark de LA says
IMHO, you can't & never will conserve your way out of needing energy without conserving your way out of people. See also 10062 - volunteers are welcome!

Seth says
Best answer is probably all of the above.   Also don't code it as "conservation", code it as improving efficiency.  Even when it comes to human behaviro ... don't skimp on your fun, just become more efficient at having it.   You might just find that it is more fun to bake a batch of cookies, than to buy them in a plastic package.  Changing your behavior itself can be fun.  There is no fun in sloth.  

Mark de LA says
Even efficiency won't get us out of the ever increasing need for more energy.  I get that every little bit helps (as the old woman proclaimed when she pissed in the ocean!), BUT the main question is still which method will give America & the rest of the World the most impact on the challenge?  Suppose we don't want to wait 20 years. Suppose we wanted to channel our resources into doing the job now - which method would work the best?  Europe seems to like nuclear. Most of those here seem to point at solar. And there are those still tilting at windmills! ... The good old USA has a history of exceptionalism & meeting challenges that seemed overwhelming at the start.  Let's "Get-R-Done" as Larry the Cable Guy says.

Seth says
Personally i think that investing in the infrastructure for 5 through 11 has just as much chance of early impact than 1 through 4.  Put in there also the idea of reengineering the grid and the technology and economic structure of more local generation vs long range distribution. 

I think there is another thing that needs looking at from the point of view of the tax incentives. Oil companies get their depletion allowances, but what do renewable energy companies get?  There should be just as much tax advantage in building a solar or wind farm as ther is in drilling a oil well. 

Seth says
M 2008-06-11 06:42:22 10304
IMHO, you can't & never will conserve your way out of needing energy without conserving your way out of people. See also 10062 - volunteers are welcome!
From a systems engineering point of view, for the same amount of energy, it is still better to improving the efficiency than to require more energy to be input.  Example, the city of Renton: it would be better for the houses in the city to upgrade their insulation and furnace efficiency, than it would be to build another power plant to keep up with heating those houses.

Mark de LA says
I might believe you if you had some numbers & the city of Renton were closed to expansion & population increase. 10% increase in efficiency is not likely to do much. New lightbulbs & recycling isn't going to do much either.  Nobody except experimentals fly airplanes on solar power. Nobody flies jets or airplanes that go just as fast on anything except carbon fuel (or rocket fuel). Same for trains. Individual cars on electricity are a small number compared to those on carbon fuel. Document please your "systems engineering viewpoint". From such a viewpoint I would conclude just the opposite. A dynamic equilibrium is what is required such as those obtained in chemical production processes, oil refining & the human body.


Mark de LA says
P.S. I like # 13 the best of all. The technology for storage & static turbines is a bitch, though. If we could figure out how to input it to a Tokamak & maybe jump start some fusion that would indeed be interesting! What we know is that we can make a lightning bolt strike in a particular place once it comes into the neighborhood, ripe for capture. I've seen it non the Sci channel.


Seth says
Seems to me that tide power (see also) is much further along than lightning power.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 09:23:01 10304
Seems to me that tide power (see also) is much further along than lightning power.
I've seen that on the Sci channel as well. I don't think it has the potential for a lot of energy vs hardware & development costs. What's the ROI?

Seth says
M 2008-06-11 09:07:27 10304
I might believe you if you had some numbers & the city of Renton were closed to expansion & population increase. 10% increase in efficiency is not likely to do much. New lightbulbs & recycling isn't going to do much either.  Nobody except experimentals fly airplanes on solar power. Nobody flies jets or airplanes that go just as fast on anything except carbon fuel (or rocket fuel). Same for trains. Individual cars on electricity are a small number compared to those on carbon fuel. Document please your "systems engineering viewpoint". From such a viewpoint I would conclude just the opposite. A dynamic equilibrium is what is required such as those obtained in chemical production processes, oil refining & the human body.

Your 10% is way off the mark, especially for an old house like mine.  It's probably more like 50-70%.  It is almost to the point where an retrofit company can come to me and guarantee that much saving in my heating bill.  Upgrading building codes for insulation of new houses needs to be looked at as well.  Also i dont't see why solar panels on roofs should not start to be viable alternatives not only for new houses but also for roof jobs on old houses.  Fasttracking that to actually happen  would be a good place for public energy policy  execuitives to focus.

I have no idea what you are talking about with your comments re no-growth and dynamic equilibrim.  

Mark de LA says
Cities and countries are not static. World population meter here says that we around 6.6 billion people and counting. Dynamic equilibrium is best exemplified by the human body. Input of air, food, warmth, water & other stuff is in an equilibrium with what is nessary to sustain the body during a lifetime of activity,work & rest etc. Unless you believe in 10062 you don't say to the human body you can only breathe out so much CO2 & inhale so much O2 and eat so much.  Go vegetarian if you want to conserve - the amount of water & methane expelled surely exceeds what you would consume if you only ate vegetables (according to John Robbins - Diet for a new America). Another word for this is balance.


Seth says
M 2008-06-11 11:26:42 10304
seth 2008-06-11 10:43:58 10304
M 2008-06-11 10:03:43 10304
Cities and countries are not static. World population meter here says that we around 6.6 billion people and counting. Dynamic equilibrium is best exemplified by the human body. Input of air, food, warmth, water & other stuff is in an equilibrium with what is nessary to sustain the body during a lifetime of activity,work & rest etc. Unless you believe in 10062 you don't say to the human body you can only breathe out so much CO2 & inhale so much O2 and eat so much.  Go vegetarian if you want to conserve - the amount of water & methane expelled surely exceeds what you would consume if you only ate vegetables (according to John Robbins - Diet for a new America). Another word for this is balance.

So you think that industry can just go on pumping more and more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere without diar consequences?  Is it not more prudant to balance those discharges?
Nope, just like you can't continue to pump ice cream & pizza into your gullet - everything has a consequence. The point is to achieve a dynamic balance that supports growth & equilibrium. CO2 is natural and is consumed by plants via photosynthesis. Methane is a natural gas expelled by farts & other processes like heating furnaces. Constricting the supply & demand artificially based on junk science is not a dynamic equilibrium. Kill the US economy & you will not have dynamic equilibrium. Jimmy Carter & Richard Nixon tried price controls & intervention in the economy & failed miserably.

Doesn't look like there will be any artificial constricting necessary, the pice of oil will do it natually.  That price just jumped up $6 in the last couple of hours.  Btw, Mark, i wish you would reexamine your use of the term "junk science".  It is actually the best climate science the world has at the moment.  The dialogue would improve if you skeptics would start matching that quality of science.  Then, perhaps with a calmer head, we could sort out what is known from what is guessed. 

Seth says
M 2008-06-11 12:09:41 10304
I have debated with you the junkscience of global warming till I'm blue in the face.  Why don't you debate it with Steve Milloy at junkscience.com - if you win it's worth a cool $500,000 - here. Then you could buy yourself the perfect upgrades to make your house totally green. (mine is a light green, but I painted it that color) The lack of a temperature rise of significance in the last 10 years (via satellite) & the lack of a place to stick a thermometer appeal to my common sense.  Add to that that the payoff of your scientific theories will not happen before your scientists kick the bucket caps it off for me.  You have obviously gone over to voodoo models & politics of the elite scientific class.

Periodically the scientist over at RealClimate analyze the deniers arguments.  I find that reading those articles is refreshing because of the lack of redneck phrases and the emphasis on real science and real math.  Sans actual practical knowledge, and neither you nor I have that, then we must rely upon reputation and linguistic texture.  So when you find a denier who's article sounds as scientific as the articles over there, let me know.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 10:43:58 10304
M 2008-06-11 10:03:43 10304
Cities and countries are not static. World population meter here says that we around 6.6 billion people and counting. Dynamic equilibrium is best exemplified by the human body. Input of air, food, warmth, water & other stuff is in an equilibrium with what is nessary to sustain the body during a lifetime of activity,work & rest etc. Unless you believe in 10062 you don't say to the human body you can only breathe out so much CO2 & inhale so much O2 and eat so much.  Go vegetarian if you want to conserve - the amount of water & methane expelled surely exceeds what you would consume if you only ate vegetables (according to John Robbins - Diet for a new America). Another word for this is balance.

So you think that industry can just go on pumping more and more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere without diar consequences?  Is it not more prudant to balance those discharges?
Nope, just like you can't continue to pump ice cream & pizza into your gullet - everything has a consequence. The point is to achieve a dynamic balance that supports growth & equilibrium. CO2 is natural and is consumed by plants via photosynthesis. Methane is a natural gas expelled by farts & other processes like heating furnaces. Constricting the supply & demand artificially based on junk science is not a dynamic equilibrium. Kill the US economy & you will not have dynamic equilibrium. Jimmy Carter & Richard Nixon tried price controls & intervention in the economy & failed miserably.


Mark de LA says
I have debated with you the junkscience of global warming till I'm blue in the face.  Why don't you debate it with Steve Milloy at junkscience.com - if you win it's worth a cool $500,000 - here. Then you could buy yourself the perfect upgrades to make your house totally green. (mine is a light green, but I painted it that color) The lack of a temperature rise of significance in the last 10 years (via satellite) & the lack of a place to stick a thermometer appeal to my common sense.  Add to that that the payoff of your scientific theories will not happen before your scientists kick the bucket caps it off for me.  You have obviously gone over to voodoo models & politics of the elite scientific class.


Mark de LA says
Newt Gingrich runs a website American Solutions for Winning the Future. In it he has a Solutions Lab on various issues of interest to American People. It is searchable & indexed by category. The part on energy solutions is here. You can participate. If you are interested in issues for the next election you can warm up here.

Mark de LA says
M 2008-06-11 13:29:14 10304
The label "denier" similar to the "holocaust denier" Ahmadinejad is offensive and begins to beg for a couplet. Those so far on the left who political viability thrives in the politics of the elite scientist class had better wake up.  Too bad you passed up the $500,000 in favor of junk blogs.

BTW, Milloy has been attacking junk science long before climate change & global warming became this generation's hula hoops! Some of his most interesting publications deal with the use of bogus statistics & studies to come up with public agendas.

Mark de LA says
Found this today & it reminded me of our discussion above:
source: ...

Environmentalists have convinced many in the mainstream media that skepticism toward the very shaky science behind global warming alarmism is akin to the indescribably creepy views of anti-Semitics who deny that the Holocaust occurred.


... You should also read Krauthammer's article on Carbon Chastity to understand where environmentalism is going even if high gasoline prices hasn't sent a very big clue about what they have already done.



See Also

  1. Thought turbulent engineering from a stream with 21 viewings related by tag "energy".
  2. Thought Energy? What is it? with 12 viewings related by tag "energy".
  3. Thought R.S. & strange machines with 6 viewings related by tag "energy".
  4. Thought about: are space and time an illusion? | iflscience with 5 viewings related by tag "energy".
  5. Thought Celulose -> Ethanol with 4 viewings related by tag "energy".
  6. Thought about: the feynman lectures: conservation of energy with 3 viewings related by tag "energy".
  7. Thought about: Alternative Energy with 1 viewings related by tag "energy".
  8. Thought More interesting than war ? with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  9. Thought 1972 Flash from the RS elib with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  10. Thought Oil from Shale and Tar Sands with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  11. Thought That's Good! with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  12. Thought Coagulated Energy anyone? with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  13. Thought Absorption vs Emission as a model for understanding with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".
  14. Thought Unified Theory with 0 viewings related by tag "energy".