Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:15:59 -0500: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If some form of fusion energy is developed, then this could turn out to be a wasted investment, since it assumes that energy distribution is most cheaply accomplished when that energy is electrical. Plasma fusion would need the electricity grid. It would probably concentrate it even more than present day fission, which is the most concentrated method (with the fewest, largest central generators). Granted, however that wasn't really what I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of either CF or my own process. CF may eventually be built into individual devices, but that isn't likely to be true immediately. My own process would at least initially be most suited to small generation plants (e.g. the size of a normal sub-station). In both cases, a HVDC network would not be needed. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
LENR may be closer than once believed if you consider that once an LENR heat source becomes reliable, a refrigeration cycle driven gen set becomes more sensible. Richard Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If some form of fusion energy is developed, then this could turn out to be a wasted investment, since it assumes that energy distribution is most cheaply accomplished when that energy is electrical. Plasma fusion would need the electricity grid. It would probably concentrate it even more than present day fission, which is the most concentrated method (with the fewest, largest central generators). Granted, however that wasn't really what I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of either CF or my own process. CF may eventually be built into individual devices, but that isn't likely to be true immediately. My own process would at least initially be most suited to small generation plants (e.g. the size of a normal sub-station). In both cases, a HVDC network would not be needed. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Howdy Mark, Whadaya mean it ain't got nuthin to do wid da subject? If BO hadna' oiled the skids of politics with more grease imported from overseas and the middle east, he and Mac would both have lost. The way to hold an election is tie one hand of each candidate to the hand of the other candidate, send them both out behind the Dime Box ,each with a machete. The survivor gets a free drink and bragging rights.. and the drunks have to put up with the lyin' and tellin' how the best man won. If there are no survivors, wez safe 'til next election. Now back to Oil and Gas. Anybody notice that the soybean co-ops have a strong interest in algae evidenced by their promotion and membershiip in algae groups being formed? Richard Mark wrote, I'm reading from latest posting, backwards, so it's not in the least surprising that this thread now has nothing to do with oil as the subject line suggests!!! :-) Given that, and just wanting to stir the pot a bit...
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:58:46 -0900: Hi, [snip] (11) subsidizing and cutting the red tape required to build a nationwide underground HVDC backbone power distribution system, a project similar in national defense significance to the construction of super highways in the 1950s, and one that might best be accomplished by the government directly using bid contracts. [snip] If some form of fusion energy is developed, then this could turn out to be a wasted investment, since it assumes that energy distribution is most cheaply accomplished when that energy is electrical. However distribution of fusion fuel is far cheaper, because of the extreme energy density (well, that's what my intuition says anyway ;) Furthermore, distribution of fusion fuel is much more flexible. Changes to a HVDC grid are expensive, while redirecting a truck carrying fuel costs essentially nothing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:58:46 -0900: Hi, [snip] (11) subsidizing and cutting the red tape required to build a nationwide underground HVDC backbone power distribution system, a project similar in national defense significance to the construction of super highways in the 1950s, and one that might best be accomplished by the government directly using bid contracts. [snip] If some form of fusion energy is developed, then this could turn out to be a wasted investment, since it assumes that energy distribution is most cheaply accomplished when that energy is electrical. However distribution of fusion fuel is far cheaper, because of the extreme energy density (well, that's what my intuition says anyway ;) Furthermore, distribution of fusion fuel is much more flexible. Changes to a HVDC grid are expensive, while redirecting a truck carrying fuel costs essentially nothing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] You don't gamble your country's security on pie in the sky. If cold fusion is developed commercially all energy infrastructure will become obsolete. If it is not developed then the prudence to focus on power infrastructure will have paid off. That is the only win-win scenario, to develop the power distribution and renewable energy generation infrastructure, promote conservation, and to invest a small portion of the gross national product in cold fusion and other new energy technologies. A new power infrastructure can be developed much faster than most people think, provided there exists the political will to do whatever it takes to cut the Gordian Knot and make it so. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If some form of fusion energy is developed, then this could turn out to be a wasted investment, since it assumes that energy distribution is most cheaply accomplished when that energy is electrical. Plasma fusion would need the electricity grid. It would probably concentrate it even more than present day fission, which is the most concentrated method (with the fewest, largest central generators). However distribution of fusion fuel is far cheaper, because of the extreme energy density (well, that's what my intuition says anyway ;) Furthermore, distribution of fusion fuel is much more flexible. With plasma fusion, the fuel could be distributed with 10 or 20 pickup trucks, making one trip per year. With cold fusion, the fuel will be built into the device, and changed out about as often as battery acid is changed (maybe never during the life of the machine). At first, with leaky, contaminated cells, it may have to be changed out annually. Only a tiny fraction of the fuel would be used up. The rest would be thrown away or recycled. To put it another way, the machines would have to have macroscopic amounts of fuel, because you cannot install an eyedropper of heavy water and have it reach the whole cell. So, over the working life of the device only a few percent of the fuel will actually be fused. A typical automobile will consume roughly 1 g of D2O per year but I cannot image you could make an engine block + fusion cell with less than ~1 kg of fuel, and why bother? See my book for details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. Unit capital costs, especially in the upstream oil and gas industry, have continued to surge in the last year, more than offsetting the slower projected rate of growth in supply. While the credit squeeze is not expected to affect long-term investment, it could delay spending in the medium-term, especially in the power sector, which accounts for $13.6 trillion, or 52% of the total. Most of the rest goes to oil and gas, mainly for exploration and development and mostly in non-OECD regions. This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. See figures I produced in 2005: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf The Solar Tower numbers I used are already reduced by a factor of 1/2.50 for plain solar panels ($1/W vs $2.50), enough to possibly build a storage and transport structure for world solar energy production to meet all energy needs for the world for $30T. The fact sheet says:Around three-quarters of the projected increase in oil demand worldwide comes from the transport sector – the sector least responsive, in the short term, to price changes. Despite continuing improvements in average vehicle fuel efficiency, the sheer growth of the car fleet – from an estimated 650 million in 2005 to about 1.4 billion by 2030 – is expected to continue to push up total oil use for transport purposes. There is not expected to be any major shift away from conventionally-fuelled vehicles before 2030, though the penetration of hybrid-electric cars is projected to rise, reducing oil demand growth. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits, (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles, (3) adapting road standards to enhance safety and feasibility of use of limited top speed (say 35 mph) vehicles on local highways, providing new low speed route interconnections where necessary and economically viable, and quickly establishing licensing standards for low top speed vehicles, (4) reducing safety standards for low top speed home built EVs, possibly producing special safety standards and fully funding licensing inspections, (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation, (6) eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, (7) subsidizing the conversion of vehicles, especially commercial fleets, to natural gas (see pickensplan.com) and construction of natural gas filling stations, (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/limo/bus services, (9) increasing subsidies for and construction of electric powered mass transit systems, (10) increasing bicycle pathways, (11) subsidizing and cutting the red tape required to build a nationwide underground HVDC backbone power distribution system, a project similar in national defense significance to the construction of super highways in the 1950s, and one that might best be accomplished by the government directly using bid contracts. Ultimately, fleet truck and airline fuel requirements can be met by biofuel, especially with oil from algae. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
In prior post: (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/ limo/bus services, should have read (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/limo/bus/delivery services,. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Horace Heffner wrote: Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. . . . This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. Exactly! And it stands to reason that would be the case. An industry has to replace most of its capital equipment in 25 to 50 years (depending on the industry). It takes very roughly as much equipment to make the economically viable forms of renewable energy as it does to produce conventional energy. So, it boils down to a choice: Do we rebuild most of conventional energy industry over the next 25 years as it wears out, or do we build something else? Put that way, the cost of wind turbines, solar thermal and so on looks a lot cheaper. And cold fusion, needless to say, is cheaper than free. It is a free lunch you are paid to eat. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits . . . Good idea. I do not see why any highways has a speed limit above 60 mph. Between Atlanta and Washington there are hundreds of miles of 65 to 75 mph highway, which seems excessive to me. . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation . . . Good idea. Long overdue. Most of the other items Horace listed are Good Ideas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. [snip] - Jed The majority of people can't or won't afford a $40,000 EV. Some great designers are forced to 3 wheel designs in order to fall under motorcycle rules. India will be, or are, way ahead of us in vehicle cost and energy conservation simply because their safety standards are lower. Meanwhile some people here, especially women, are switching to motor scooters which are way less safe than even motorcycles. There should be a special class of lightweight 4 wheel vehicle that is treated like a motorcycle. Perhaps limiting this class to single passenger vehicle designs would be OK to prevent children passengers. I think 4 wheel vehicles are much safer than 2 or 3 wheel designs in inclement weather. This would be a move toward safety, not away from it. Those wanting higher levels of safety can spend the $30,00 - $40,000 necessary. Those of us willing to take some risk to drop our gas consumption by 60% or more should be allowed to, especially since for many of us it means going to a 2 wheeled vehicle. The auto industry is in the tank anyway. Now is the time to put a low cost high production high milage option into the market place as quickly as possible. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Here is a recent story on Amyris, one the companies which can convert sugarcane direct into gasoline or diesel, which will hasten the switch from fossil fuels to renewables: http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/index.php?option=com_newsroomItemid=27 There is also an article in today's SF Chron on the company. One thing not being mentioned so far - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet so to speak ... and that is mostly for fear of fomenting early problems with US agriculture (which has already been successful in keeping Brazilian ethanol from being imported) is this: When Amyris teaches them (Brazil) how to make renewable gasoline from sugarcane (for a small royalty), there is no way to stop that fuel from coming-in by the mega-barrel. We should be grateful, right? Renewable fuel, carbon neutral - and from an ally not an enemy. But there is a downside for tree-huggers. If you thought the Amazon rain forest was in trouble before now - just wait. This could be the death warrant. Guess you could call it the 'Grateful Dead' but after all - that is their problem, right? This dilemma then - is the new trade-off - with a new set of morals in the balance: renewable gasoline - not ethanol - which is a good thing as it is CO2 neutral - but based on the same sugarcane, farmed on former rain forest land, and harvested with low-wage labor, but coming from a Free Market country and ally of ours, yet one with few eco-morals - which is poised to take full advantage of the situation in a rapid manner. Tough choices - since to limit the imports now to protect a rain-forest that the owners do not care about protecting- that plays right into the hands of OPEC and increases CO2 at the same time. - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Horace Heffner wrote: Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. . . . This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. Exactly! And it stands to reason that would be the case. An industry has to replace most of its capital equipment in 25 to 50 years (depending on the industry). It takes very roughly as much equipment to make the economically viable forms of renewable energy as it does to produce conventional energy. So, it boils down to a choice: Do we rebuild most of conventional energy industry over the next 25 years as it wears out, or do we build something else? Put that way, the cost of wind turbines, solar thermal and so on looks a lot cheaper. And cold fusion, needless to say, is cheaper than free. It is a free lunch you are paid to eat. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits . . . Good idea. I do not see why any highways has a speed limit above 60 mph. Between Atlanta and Washington there are hundreds of miles of 65 to 75 mph highway, which seems excessive to me. . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation . . . Good idea. Long overdue. Most of the other items Horace listed are Good Ideas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Horace Heffner wrote: The majority of people can't or won't afford a $40,000 EV. That price is ridiculous. I am sure GM can make them much cheaper, if they try. Toyota makes lots of money selling the Prius at $22,000. The Prius is one small mod away from being a plug-in hybrid. (Or $6,000 away, if you do it yourself.) Some great designers are forced to 3 wheel designs in order to fall under motorcycle rules. India will be, or are, way ahead of us in vehicle cost and energy conservation simply because their safety standards are lower. As far as I know, US energy efficiency is far above India and China. Of course our cars use more energy because they are ridiculously oversized and inefficient, but our other industries, space heating and the like is ahead of the third world. Overall energy consumption is much higher because we consume more goods, but the individual goods are more efficiently produced. Plus, to put it bluntly, in India they do not value human lives as much as we do -- in dollar terms, that is. In the US it would be false economy to produce unsafe cars. The money you save in equipment would be lost to increased medical costs and lost income from lives cut short. In the US, automobile accidents cost roughly $230 billion per year in medical bills, as I pointed out in Chapter 17 of my book. The medical costs would show up as increased auto insurance cost. Most of the cost of automobile insurance already goes to pay medical bills, not replacement equipment. That is why my Prius insurance is almost as cheap as the Geo Metro, even though the Prius is worth ~$18,000 and Metro is officially worth nothing. That is to say, I have no collision coverage for it; only injury and liability. (In case I cause an accident I gotta pay for the other guy's car.) The Metro is an unsafe tin can on wheels, whereas the Prius has every known safety feature. Meanwhile some people here, especially women, are switching to motor scooters which are way less safe than even motorcycles. But I have to admit they look like fun! No worse than bicycles. I assume they can only be used on surface roads under 45 mph. That's the only sane use for a Geo Metro, by the way. There should be a special class of lightweight 4 wheel vehicle that is treated like a motorcycle. Well, you are talking about a vehicle limited to 45 mph surface roads only, that makes some sense, but I doubt it would be much of a market that in the US. Rather than do that they should make a short-range electric car. Short-range in the U.S. being ~100 miles. In Japan ~50 to ~80 miles would suffice. (It is a smaller country.) Many short-range Japanese all-electric cars are expected to go on sale in 2009. They have been showing them on NHK national news for months. The Mitsubishi i MiEV is a good example. It will cost $27,000 in limited production, and go into mass production soon. Specs: The i-MiEV is powered by a compact 47 kW motor that develops 180 Nm (133 lb-ft) of torque and a 330V, 16 kWh or 20 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. Top speed is 130 kph (81 mph), with a range of up to 130 km (81 miles) for the 16 kWh pack or 160 km (99 miles) for the 20 kWh pack. The motor is coupled to a reduction gear and differential to drive both rear wheels. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/mitsubishi_i_miev_electric_car.php Cars generally cost more in Japan than in the U.S., so $27,000 is quite reasonable. The auto industry is in the tank anyway. Now is the time to put a low cost high production high milage option into the market place as quickly as possible. Amen. But no quicker than possible. Let's see if they can do it 15 years after Toyota began selling the Prius, and 5 years after they sold a million Priuses. Can they do at least as well as Mitsubishi, a company that has been on the ropes for years? Is that a challenge they cannot meet? In that case they deserve to go bankrupt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. Oh! The above statement (2) above should say: (2) reducing safety standards for A SPECIAL CLASS OF EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles,. Yes, I certainly agree with you Jed that it is desirable to have production EVs and PHEVs with the same standards as regular vehicles. In the present economic and world circumstances I think it is also important to give the consumer the option to forego those high safety standards to buy a comparatively safe light 4 wheel vehicle instead of going to a motorcycle. A special class of vehicles could provide that choice without compromising the image of ordinary vehicles. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
I wrote: As far as I am concerned, they should put automatic sensors in all automobiles and charge anyone who goes over the speed limit a hefty fine, say $1 per mile per minute; i.e., $15 for travelling at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone for 1 minute, automatically subtracted from your credit card 10 minutes after the sensor reports the violation. I should point out that we already have this arrangement in the US, and people like it. The incentive works the other way around. They do not fine you for going too fast, but they reward you for staying at the speed limit. That is to say, several insurance companies offer to install a continuously recording GPS gadget that keeps track of where you go, how fast you drive, and the TOD (time of day), and compares that data to the speed limits which are mapped for most major roads. People who acquiesce to this arrangement are mainly people who do not intend to drive much anyway, people who seldom drive at night, and people like me who do not intend to exceed the speed limit. They get reduced insurance rates. It is an invasion of privacy but as the Internet has demonstrated, most people do not care much about privacy anyway. I myself would not give a fig if some person at the insurance company was able to track my every automobile trip, if they charged me ~$100 less every month in return. If someone were to offer me $100 a month to tell them where I go every day I would be happy to do that, as long as it did not take any effort on my part. I suppose it would be nice if you could shut the feature off temporarily. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
I'm reading from latest posting, backwards, so it's not in the least surprising that this thread now has nothing to do with oil as the subject line suggests!!! :-) Given that, and just wanting to stir the pot a bit... Jed writes: As far as I am concerned, they should put automatic sensors in all automobiles and charge anyone who goes over the speed limit a hefty fine, say $1 per mile per minute; i.e., $15 for travelling at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone for 1 minute, automatically subtracted from your credit card 10 minutes after the sensor reports the violation. and I myself would not give a fig if some person at the insurance company was able to track my every automobile trip, if they charged me ~$100 less every month in return. If someone were to offer me $100 a month to tell them where I go every day I would be happy to do that, as long as it did not take any effort on my part. Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security (or comfort, i.e., lower insurance bills) deserve NEITHER! Think this was Ben (the lightning rod) Franklin... And that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the slow erosion of our constitutional rights. Be prepared to justify your position with Supreme Court cases... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1782 - Release Date: 11/11/2008 7:32 PM
