Tilting at Windmills
Dr. Convection
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081903M.html
Tilting at Windmills
By Waldemar Ingdahl Published 08/19/2003
Sometimes environmental issues are not as clear as you might think -- or as
green activists want them to be.
Norges Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth Norway, the country's largest
environmental campaign group) is criticizing plans to build a wind farm of
40 turbines, more than 100 meters high, on the island of Sleneset in the
northern Norwegian commune of Nordland. "Wind turbines can be placed almost
anywhere, but not here," says Gaute Dahl, chairman of the local committee in
Nordland. "This plan should be stopped before it even gets to the drawing
board." Quite a surprise to those of us who are accustomed to hearing
environmentalists solidly back the increased use of wind power. Believe it
or not, Naturvernforbund in Nordland may have some good points about wind
power -- and perhaps Brussels should pay attention.
Norway is not a member state of the European Union, but the EU is currently
putting forward plans to boost wind power as a favored source of energy. In
fact, it is becoming big business indeed. To meet the proposed targets for
producing power from wind, we are not discussing single windmills any more,
but the kind of massive farm that is planned on Sleneset.
Wind power is a much dispersed power source. It gives a comparatively small
amount of energy in relation to its volume. Energy has to be concentrated
from a large surface. The force of the winds in the area must be just right,
not too weak (or it does not produce enough) and not too strong (the wind
mill shuts down). Therefore, those few areas that have winds that meet these
conditions must be developed extensively. Even the windmills themselves are
still not that efficient. A medieval windmill had an energy efficiency of 17
percent, while a modern one is barely 50 percent -- with some of percentage
lost in the storage of energy.
It is interesting to note that in the 30 years that wind power has been
discussed there have been very few scientific inquires into the
environmental consequences of a massive development of it.
Naturvernforbundet in Nordland are justified in their concerns about damages
to bird life (they get hacked by the windmill's rotor blades), especially
for large predators like eagles. Bats tend to get disoriented, and we do not
know much about how it affects marine wildlife (both fish and mammals). Some
research shows that it disrupts television, radio, and radar signals. Since
windmills have to be placed where the wind conditions are right they could
well be placed in populated areas, and then the windmills' sound level,
casting of shadow, and rather unsightly appearance should be considered too.
In these days when the precautionary principle is applied to so many things,
halting projects that cannot be proved to be completely without harm, it is
surprising that it is not applied to wind power. Should not the development
of wind power be considered too risky?
From its humble beginnings in 10th century Persia, and through its
development by the Dane Paul la Cour in 1890, the modern discussion of wind
power started in the 1970s with the rise of environmentalism. The
environmentalists saw hydroelectric power as too damaging. Fossil fuels were
also dangerous to the environment, they said, and what was in some circles
an initially positive view of nuclear power also changed. That left only
solar and wind power, the so-called "renewable" energy sources.
It is important to remember that many of the wind power visionaries back in
those days had quite strict ideals of a decentralized, small scale and
self-sufficient society in mind when considering wind power. They did not
have the ambition to provide the energy demands of a modern industrialized
society, and certainly not those of the information society. Wind power was
envisioned with this in mind; and from that somewhat medieval point of
approach this alternative was realistic.
This connects wind power to the main force behind its popularity with
environment policy makers -- its sustainability, according to the view that
nature strives for a stable state of balance without changes, especially not
man-made ones. In this view solar power and wind power are sustainable, but
not much else.
But from its centralized vision, according to an abstract sustainability and
renewability, it in fact forgets about the real environment. Without large
sums of government subsidies the wind power industry would not exist, since
it is too inefficient. In the wake of the Kyoto Protocol the subsidies have
increased, since it is said that the development and switch to wind power
would reduce the emission of CO2. But a far more cost-efficient way to
reduce CO2 emissions would be to reduce them in Eastern Europe.
This is not the view of modern ecology, where nature is seen as a dynamic
system, often with quite radical changes. Nature cannot "strive" for goals
such as balance; it is an impersonal system that lacks easily discerned
patterns. Thus human evaluation is important, since we cannot deduce an
environmental policy from some intrinsic value of nature. The values of
fishermen, friends of nature, and the inhabitants of the developed areas
should be considered too. Wind power is not conceived from this point of
view.
Eric Swanson
>
>From:
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/081903M.html
>
>Tilting at Windmills
>
>By Waldemar Ingdahl Published 08/19/2003
D.C. is confused again.
He can't tell the difference between Tech_Central_Propaganda_Station and reality.
[cut]
>Wind power is a much dispersed power source. It gives a comparatively small
>amount of energy in relation to its volume. Energy has to be concentrated
>from a large surface. The force of the winds in the area must be just right,
>not too weak (or it does not produce enough) and not too strong (the wind
>mill shuts down). Therefore, those few areas that have winds that meet these
>conditions must be developed extensively. Even the windmills themselves are
>still not that efficient. A medieval windmill had an energy efficiency of 17
>percent, while a modern one is barely 50 percent -- with some of percentage
>lost in the storage of energy.
It's true that the conversion efficiency of a wind generator is around 50%,
based upon the conversion of wind moving at a certain speed far upstream thru
the disc which is swept by the blades. However, this is a misleading value,
since the air which actually passes thru the disc slows down as it does so.
Thus, farther upstream of the blades, where the air is moving faster, the area
of the disc thru which the air flows is only 58% of the disc in which the blades
turn (if my memory is correct). So maximum possible conversion efficiency is only
58%. Thus, given the usual losses in machinery, 50% overall conversion is not
bad.
The whole idea of conversion efficiency is a red herring, since the energy source
is free. The only number that matters is the cost of the equipment, ie, the capital
cost and maintenance.
>
>But from its centralized vision, according to an abstract sustainability and
>renewability, it in fact forgets about the real environment. Without large
>sums of government subsidies the wind power industry would not exist, since
>it is too inefficient. In the wake of the Kyoto Protocol the subsidies have
>increased, since it is said that the development and switch to wind power
>would reduce the emission of CO2. But a far more cost-efficient way to
>reduce CO2 emissions would be to reduce them in Eastern Europe.
Sustainability is not defined that way. It is based upon the notion that
humanity can not continue to use nonrenewable resources forever, since there
will come a day when there is no more to use. Energy is a perfect example,
since we rely on fossil sources for most of what we now consume.
>This is not the view of modern ecology, where nature is seen as a dynamic
>system, often with quite radical changes. Nature cannot "strive" for goals
>such as balance; it is an impersonal system that lacks easily discerned
>patterns. Thus human evaluation is important, since we cannot deduce an
>environmental policy from some intrinsic value of nature. The values of
>fishermen, friends of nature, and the inhabitants of the developed areas
>should be considered too. Wind power is not conceived from this point of
>view.
Nature is alive. Man is part of nature. If mankind eventually kills the
natural world, he will likely find it impossible to survive also.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Worstall
I'm hoping to get a little education here. Please, this is a serious
request for enlightenment.
Some half remembered figures :
OK, the wind is free.
Windmills operate at 30 % or so of the time. ( another 30 % the wind
is too slow, another too fast. Yes, not 100% but then these are half
remembered figures ).
Because of this, backup is required for wind power. There has to be
spare generating capacity for the 60 - 70 % of the time that the
windmill isn't working properly.
Am I roughly correct so far ?
So, we have two sets of capital costs, and we only get the " free "
wind power 30 % of the time. By my rough reckoning, that means that to
be price competetive at present, wind power needs to be produced at
one sixth of the cost of other forms of electricty.
So two questions.
1) Is the above logic correct ?
2) Is wind power actually one sixth or below of the cost of , say
Natural Gas fired electricity ?
Tim Worstall
Thomas Palm
news:825e2890.0309...@posting.google.com:
> request for enlightenment.
> Some half remembered figures :
> OK, the wind is free.
> Windmills operate at 30 % or so of the time. ( another 30 % the wind
> is too slow, another too fast. Yes, not 100% but then these are half
> remembered figures ).
> Because of this, backup is required for wind power. There has to be
> spare generating capacity for the 60 - 70 % of the time that the
> windmill isn't working properly.
> Am I roughly correct so far ?
If you have windmills spread over a larger area most of the time it will
blow somewhere so there will be some averaging, but yes, you do need
spare capacity, just as you would for a large nuclear plant that could at
any time have to shut down for some minor emergency. No power is 100%
reliable which is why you want a mix in your grid.
> So, we have two sets of capital costs, and we only get the " free "
> wind power 30 % of the time. By my rough reckoning, that means that to
> be price competetive at present, wind power needs to be produced at
> one sixth of the cost of other forms of electricty.
One sixth? How did you get that number?
You do need backup, but for lots of energy sources capital cost is not
the major factor. If you happen to have hydro power nearby that is
excellent to balance the load as it is limited more by available water
than by max power. Natural gas is also a good fuel for load balancing
since the cost of building the plant is relatively small compared to the
cost of the fuel.
> So two questions.
> 1) Is the above logic correct ?
I don't think so.
> 2) Is wind power actually one sixth or below of the cost of , say
> Natural Gas fired electricity ?
No.
Tim Worstall
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in
> news:825e2890.0309...@posting.google.com:
> > I'm hoping to get a little education here. Please, this is a serious
> > request for enlightenment.
> > Some half remembered figures :
> > OK, the wind is free.
> > Windmills operate at 30 % or so of the time. ( another 30 % the wind
> > is too slow, another too fast. Yes, not 100% but then these are half
> > remembered figures ).
> > Because of this, backup is required for wind power. There has to be
> > spare generating capacity for the 60 - 70 % of the time that the
> > windmill isn't working properly.
> > Am I roughly correct so far ?
>
> If you have windmills spread over a larger area most of the time it will
> blow somewhere so there will be some averaging, but yes, you do need
> spare capacity, just as you would for a large nuclear plant that could at
> any time have to shut down for some minor emergency. No power is 100%
> reliable which is why you want a mix in your grid.
Sure you want a mix in the grid....but others are rather more than 30
% reliable aren't they ?
Say, the Uk requires 10 M Watts of power ( just a random number ). If
we have 30 M Watts of windmills all over the Uk, we could be pretty
usure that we would get our 10 M Watt at any one time. Is that what
you're saying ?
>
> > So, we have two sets of capital costs, and we only get the " free "
> > wind power 30 % of the time. By my rough reckoning, that means that to
> > be price competetive at present, wind power needs to be produced at
> > one sixth of the cost of other forms of electricty.
>
> One sixth? How did you get that number?
Two electricity generating systems, one of which only works 1/3 of the
time. Working only with capital costs, that would, I think, mean that
the wind system would need to be 1/6 th of the cost when actually
operating.
Or is this just a brain spasm I'm having ?
>
> You do need backup, but for lots of energy sources capital cost is not
> the major factor. If you happen to have hydro power nearby that is
> excellent to balance the load as it is limited more by available water
> than by max power. Natural gas is also a good fuel for load balancing
> since the cost of building the plant is relatively small compared to the
> cost of the fuel.
>
> > So two questions.
> > 1) Is the above logic correct ?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > 2) Is wind power actually one sixth or below of the cost of , say
> > Natural Gas fired electricity ?
>
> No.
How much more expensive is it ?
Tim Worstall
Thomas Palm
>> If you have windmills spread over a larger area most of the time it
>> will blow somewhere so there will be some averaging, but yes, you do
>> need spare capacity, just as you would for a large nuclear plant that
>> could at any time have to shut down for some minor emergency. No
>> power is 100% reliable which is why you want a mix in your grid.
>
> Sure you want a mix in the grid....but others are rather more than 30
> % reliable aren't they ?
Well, so are windmills if you put them in good spots.
> Say, the Uk requires 10 M Watts of power ( just a random number ). If
> we have 30 M Watts of windmills all over the Uk, we could be pretty
> usure that we would get our 10 M Watt at any one time. Is that what
> you're saying ?
No, what I'm saying is that we need a mix of energy sources. 100% wind
power is not a good idea. The more different energy sources we have the
less risk they are all down at the same time.
>> > So, we have two sets of capital costs, and we only get the " free "
>> > wind power 30 % of the time. By my rough reckoning, that means that
>> > to be price competetive at present, wind power needs to be produced
>> > at one sixth of the cost of other forms of electricty.
>>
>> One sixth? How did you get that number?
>
> Two electricity generating systems, one of which only works 1/3 of the
> time. Working only with capital costs, that would, I think, mean that
> the wind system would need to be 1/6 th of the cost when actually
> operating.
> Or is this just a brain spasm I'm having ?
First you fail to consider that the price for electricity from wind
already takes the efficiency into accout, secondly you pretend that all
energy sources have the same capital cost which is clearly wrong since
fuel is a significant cost for many. I think your brain is unusually
spastic today.
>> > 2) Is wind power actually one sixth or below of the cost of , say
>> > Natural Gas fired electricity ?
>>
>> No.
>
> How much more expensive is it ?
I don't have any exact numbers, and it depends on so many factors that
it's hard to give a single number anyway. How good places do you have for
building your windmills? What are the environmental regulations for the
alternatives? Do you have the infrastructure to deliver gas to a new
plant or do you have to build a pipeline too? etc.
My guess would be that for a relatively small fraction of wind power
it'll be between 0% and 30% more expensive than alternatives such as
natural gas, but that is just based on numbers I've seen but not checked
the veracity of.
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:<Xns93F76DC96FE8FT...@212.83.64.229>...
> > t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in
> > news:825e2890.0309...@posting.google.com:
> > > I'm hoping to get a little education here. Please, this is a serious
> > > request for enlightenment.
> > > Some half remembered figures :
> > > OK, the wind is free.
> > > Windmills operate at 30 % or so of the time. ( another 30 % the wind
> > > is too slow, another too fast. Yes, not 100% but then these are half
> > > remembered figures ).
Actually, Tim, most of the current wind power sites are areas that have
strong and steady winds, not a random or haphazard assortment of unstable
winds. Your case may be valid once the 'premium' sites are populated, but
are more likely based on the statistics for farm power ( prior to
electrification most small farms used small wind power generators which
could be manually feathered to survive wind storms. ).
Could you provide actual statistics on wind speed variations at some major
wind power sites such as the Danish offshore fields or the California
mountain passes?
Tim Worstall
> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93F76DC96FE8FT...@212.83.64.229>...
> > > t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in
> > > news:825e2890.0309...@posting.google.com:
> > > > I'm hoping to get a little education here. Please, this is a serious
> > > > request for enlightenment.
> > > > Some half remembered figures :
> > > > OK, the wind is free.
> > > > Windmills operate at 30 % or so of the time. ( another 30 % the wind
> > > > is too slow, another too fast. Yes, not 100% but then these are half
> > > > remembered figures ).
>
> Actually, Tim, most of the current wind power sites are areas that have
> strong and steady winds, not a random or haphazard assortment of unstable
> winds. Your case may be valid once the 'premium' sites are populated, but
> are more likely based on the statistics for farm power ( prior to
> electrification most small farms used small wind power generators which
> could be manually feathered to survive wind storms. ).
What attracted me to this thread was the title......I drove across
Spain last week and went through Castila La Mancha where the old Don (
in fiction of course ) came from.At one point of the road getting lost
( I'm never lost of course, I know where I am, but the road sometimes
gets lost ) I circled the roundabout with his statue several times. On
the hills above the town are a series of old Spanish style windmills.
They are very different from the Portuguese , Dutch or English styles
I am more used to ....they actually look exactly like the
illustrations in old versions of the book....which is why the
illustrations have alsways seemed so strange to me.
Anyway, alongside these old mills are several new energy generating
ones. A similar set can be seen on the southern entrance to Madrid.
Now I don't even know if they are in commission or not, but I did note
that on a day with nice light breezes, none of them were actually
turning. I'm not going all gooey about the wisdom of our forefathers,
but at a guess, a place where centuries ago there was felt to be
sufficient wind to build huge stone towers to capture it might be a
good place to build more efficient modern windmills ?
>
> Could you provide actual statistics on wind speed variations at some major
> wind power sites such as the Danish offshore fields or the California
> mountain passes?
No of course not. I did already mention that I was taking half
remembered figures.
I would also like to point out that I'm not anti wind power. I'm just
pro cheap power. If they are price competetive then let's cover the
country with them. If they are price competetive opnly in certain
selected areas, then lets build them there. And of course, if they are
not price competetive, then let's not build them at all.
So what are the actual figures for wind power per whatever unit you
want to use ?
Tim Worstall
Dave Simpson
The issue of wind power is interesting. Yes, the fuel is free, as is
true with solar power, but both of these, beloved of lefties, have the
drawbacks that the wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always
shine. Hydropower should be the first "renewable" source pursued more
strongly. Wind power is interesting, nevertheless.
Most left-wing supporters of wind power and other things are typical
hypocrites and predictably are against alternative energy sources if
they ever promise to offer a chance of success. I'll provide an
example below, which is a stellar example. (It's useful also because
it does show a viable wind power site and project, compared to the
fluffy dreams otherwise so typically expressed by the people who want
us to change to alternative "renewable" energy sources.)
Wind power is interesting because there are large areas that otherwise
might not have many other uses, but are closer to settled areas than
is the case for the desert southwest USA and other subtropical to
temperate desert areas where solar energy makes the most sense -- but
then imposes far higher transmission costs and headaches. (The USA's
transmission system, as it is today, is not sufficient to meet
existing, let alone future, needs. We need improved and increased
transmission even more than increased future generation; distributed
generation down to the ideal home-and-vehicle level remains a long
time away. This is true for the United Kingdom, too, where bulk power
transmission is a fact discussed even in the context of distributed
transmission.)
And, where there are other uses, it would be interesting to combine
energy projects, such as combining offshore petroleum drilling rigs
with wind turbines.
Most interesting besides mountain passes of note such as Altamont Pass
in northern California and the Tehachapi-San Gorgonio pass areas along
with the mountain-Mojave-Desert wind farm area in southern California,
are those good prevaliing westerlies off the West Coast, and windy
places such as around Cape Cod on the East Coast (and elsewhere on the
East Coast). As many people are settled near the two coasts of the
USA, transmission from wind farms offshore is less problematic than
from vast solar sites in the desert Southwest. (Along the Front
Range, on the east side of the Rockies, there are many local windy
"hot spots" where wind power might be implemented in a way similar to
the passes in California.)
Transmission options for offshore wind farms (US)
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/labs/rerl/pubs/2002/AWEA2002Transmission.pdf
Wind power transmission case studies
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/trans/casestudies.htm
Etc.
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/default.htm
Cape Cod project, opposition
Wind energy projects
Wind energy resource atlas of the US
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/
Renewable potential maps
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/rpmap/rp_contents.html
National Grid (UK) D.G. paper, showing power-site maps (remote from
settlement)
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/library/documents/pdfs/Distributed_Generation.pdf
Dave Simpson
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<8Pn9b.1924$hF3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> I would also like to point out that I'm not anti wind power. I'm just
> pro cheap power.
Are you talking about the TOTAL cost of the power including heath,
externalised costs, etc?
> If they are price competetive then let's cover the
> country with them.
Two problems. One. People don't seem to think they are attractive. Secondly
they make a problem for Radar operators since they have a variable profile
from the blades ) that can't be removed as 'ground clutter'.
> If they are price competetive opnly in certain
> selected areas, then lets build them there.
That is happening, but slowly.
>And of course, if they are
> not price competetive, then let's not build them at all.
Price competitive depends a lot of regulation and promotion. Are we talking,
in a world where Big Oil doesn't get 50B in subsidies to keep it cheap? Some
factors that have blocked wind power have been overcome by new advances. For
example, the lack of 'active power' in wind generators ( ability to adjust
for varying load demands from the power company ) have been addressed with
newer generator designs and electronic load regulation.
One change that could reasonable be expected to lower costs dramatically is
an increase in standardixat
> So what are the actual figures for wind power per whatever unit you
> want to use ?
Ah, actual numbers. That varies a lot by the technology and the average
steady wind speed of the site, and the fraction of the time that it is
necessary to shut down operation. Obviously there is no one number. Nor
should you believe all of the numbers being floated around without
inspection. One problem is that the main cost of wind power is in the
initial cost ( investment ) which is very sensitive to the prime lending
rate.
K&N
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.03091...@posting.google.com...
> Tim Worstall --
>
> The issue of wind power is interesting. Yes, the fuel is free, as is
> true with solar power, but both of these, beloved of lefties, have the
> drawbacks that the wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always
> shine. Hydropower should be the first "renewable" source pursued more
> strongly. Wind power is interesting, nevertheless.
>
> Most left-wing supporters of wind power and other things are typical
> hypocrites and predictably are against alternative energy sources if
> they ever promise to offer a chance of success. I'll provide an
> example below, which is a stellar example. (It's useful also because
> it does show a viable wind power site and project, compared to the
> fluffy dreams otherwise so typically expressed by the people who want
> us to change to alternative "renewable" energy sources.)
>
This is an interesting comment as we are having that debate here in my own
back yard of Iowa.
Power companies have been building windmill farms in the rural areas of
northwest and northcentral Iowa for the past several years. These units are
in rural areas, usually surrounded by corn or bean fields with the only
people living nearby being the farmers who sold/leased the property to the
power company.
Enter the environmentalist factions who claim that these windmills are an
eyesore and make too much noise (the spinning blades can be heard a hundred
yards away). They are threatening law suites to stop building new units and
want the existing units removed.
I cann't help but wonder if they believe what they say or if their goal is
to keep people from getting the electricity they want.
Kerry
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
One a 'em gud ol' boyz o'r 'ere gots hisse'f in ta da dreenk an' done
runned himz pickup treek inta 'at 'ere win'meal finy o'r 'ere. I done
saw it an' so I says ta 'is aver feelow 'at were bisides me, I says ta
'im: "That does appear at first glance, Charles, to be the sort of
juxtapositional reference to the classic Spanish literary work of
Cervantes which I could find highly useful in a future usenet post." So
me an' 'at guy 'at were bisides me 'at I done talked av afore, up 'ere,
does ya-all sees 'ere I is pointin' me finga?, anyways, later but good
an' fast, wez gots ta the seen a da axcident an' I says ta 'at aver
feelow 'at I keeps talkin' ta on akounts ta 'im bein' right nekst ta me,
I says, "The situation here at the accident does appear on first
assessment to, indeed, be very grave. Clearly he has driven his late
model, light blue, Ford F-150 pickup into this modern, clean, bird-safe
wind generation facility full tilt. Before performing first aid and
saving the poor man's life, I shall retrieve my Motorola mobile phone
from my automobile in order to place an urgent call for the high quality
emergency rescue personnel that our sky high local tax system helps to
perpetuate." Soz, 'at were 'at, an' I done gots 'is 'ere medal frum da
prazident av 'is 'ere Yoonited Stetz av 'Merikesch so az I cun provz 'at
it all done happen axect 'ike I says 'at it done.
Tim Worstall
> "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<8Pn9b.1924$hF3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> <snip>
> >
> > I would also like to point out that I'm not anti wind power. I'm just
> > pro cheap power.
>
> Are you talking about the TOTAL cost of the power including heath,
> externalised costs, etc?
Yes.
>
> > If they are price competetive then let's cover the
> > country with them.
>
> Two problems. One. People don't seem to think they are attractive. Secondly
> they make a problem for Radar operators since they have a variable profile
> from the blades ) that can't be removed as 'ground clutter'.
>
> > If they are price competetive opnly in certain
> > selected areas, then lets build them there.
>
> That is happening, but slowly.
>
> >And of course, if they are
> > not price competetive, then let's not build them at all.
>
> Price competitive depends a lot of regulation and promotion. Are we talking,
> in a world where Big Oil doesn't get 50B in subsidies to keep it cheap?
I'm always a little dubius about these sorts of numbers.I note that in
the Uk for example, 80 % of the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump is
taxation. That doesn't sound like subsidy to me. I also note that BP (
formerly British Petroleum ) excluding taxation on its profits, is the
largest single tax collector for the UK Treasury. That just doesn't
sound like subsidy.
Some
> factors that have blocked wind power have been overcome by new advances. For
> example, the lack of 'active power' in wind generators ( ability to adjust
> for varying load demands from the power company ) have been addressed with
> newer generator designs and electronic load regulation.
>
> One change that could reasonable be expected to lower costs dramatically is
> an increase in standardixat
I'm sure that mass production and advancing technology will increase
efficiency. I just want to know where we are now.
>
> > So what are the actual figures for wind power per whatever unit you
> > want to use ?
>
> Ah, actual numbers. That varies a lot by the technology and the average
> steady wind speed of the site, and the fraction of the time that it is
> necessary to shut down operation. Obviously there is no one number. Nor
> should you believe all of the numbers being floated around without
> inspection. One problem is that the main cost of wind power is in the
> initial cost ( investment ) which is very sensitive to the prime lending
> rate.
So wind power suffers the same investment problems as nuclear power
then ? High capital costs with very low running costs ?
Tim Worstall
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> So wind power suffers the same investment problems as nuclear power
> then ? High capital costs with very low running costs ?
Not THAT high. The capital costs are a major cost compared to fossil fueled
plants but the externalities are a much lower cost, so perhaps if balances
out. As the reference below shows, the cost of operation is getting
competitive with fossil fuels and will probably match them within 5 to 7
years.
http://www.risoe.dk/konferencer/energyconf/presentations/morthorst.pdf
Tim Worstall
Interesting presentation.
So with wind becoming " completely economically competetive " in the
next 5 - 10 years, then what I've been saying over the past couple of
years will be true :
1) Technology will come to save us.
2) Subsidies are not required.
3) As soon as wind is so competetive, we'll all switch to using it
anyway, right ? Why would we pay more for fossil fuel ?
4) Installing inefficient plant now is a waste of money. Wait 5 years
and then install the good stuff. Won't make any damn difference
waiting 5 years a century or two hence.
5) We don't need Kyoto. We'll be closing fossil plants in 10 years
time as we replace them with wind. So why bother with the treaty ?
Tim Worstall
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<cIU9b.6504$hF3.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> > news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<0HM9b.6124$BT1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > So wind power suffers the same investment problems as nuclear power
> > > then ? High capital costs with very low running costs ?
> >
> >
> > Not THAT high. The capital costs are a major cost compared to fossil
fueled
> > plants but the externalities are a much lower cost, so perhaps if
balances
> > out. As the reference below shows, the cost of operation is getting
> > competitive with fossil fuels and will probably match them within 5 to 7
> > years.
> >
> > http://www.risoe.dk/konferencer/energyconf/presentations/morthorst.pdf
>
> Interesting presentation.
>
> So with wind becoming " completely economically competetive " in the
> next 5 - 10 years, then what I've been saying over the past couple of
> years will be true :
> 1) Technology will come to save us.
Nope. We have to save ourselves. What it is saying is that the cost of wind
power will equal that of fossil fueled plants. This does not mean that wind
power will be built. They may build the fossil fuel plants since they are
the same price and more 'conventional'. In fact, they probably will.
> 2) Subsidies are not required.
Subsidies to the oil industry are not required but exist anyway. They are a
demonstration of political power, not economics. Certainly a minumum of
eight billion, up to 50B of direct subsidies depending on who you get to do
the accounting. All this in a business that brings in hundreds of billions
of dollars in profits and which is in no danger of economic hardship.
> 3) As soon as wind is so competetive, we'll all switch to using it
> anyway, right ? Why would we pay more for fossil fuel ?
Will we? Not so as I have seen. The tendency is to do what you have always
done and get what you have always gotten. Most business, including energy
companies, will opt for the traditional solution even if wind power was
cheaper. This is why changing corporate culture is one of the trickiest
management problems available.
> 4) Installing inefficient plant now is a waste of money. Wait 5 years
> and then install the good stuff. Won't make any damn difference
> waiting 5 years a century or two hence.
Replacing 30% thermal efficiency coal plants in the Mississippi valley with
60% efficient ones will have more impact on reducing smog and CO2 emissions
than the construction of wind power farms for the forseeable future.
> 5) We don't need Kyoto.
Need is relative. Kyoto COULD be done without the formal agreement easily
enough, but the need for international agreements is NOT to force change but
to 'validate' change so that the forces of inertia can be overcome. The
abiltiy to eliminate CFCs existed long before the Montreal Protocol. But
nothing happened of any major consequence precisely because there was no
*recognised* need to change. By adopting the protocol, it told everyone that
they could expect problems if they didn't get to work on the problem and
thus engaged the business community in the effort, resutling in a rapid
evolution of A/C technology.
> We'll be closing fossil plants in 10 years
> time as we replace them with wind. So why bother with the treaty ?
Wind is slow to be adopted, and will probably never reach more than a
fraction of the total potential. In any case, the treaty is needed
irrespective of the technology for reducing emissions. It is needed to
*validate* the changes and create a preference for clean technologies over
traditional ones.
Thomas Palm
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> So with wind becoming " completely economically competetive " in the
> next 5 - 10 years, then what I've been saying over the past couple of
> years will be true :
> 1) Technology will come to save us.
Price reductions are to a large extent a matter of scale. You need to
produce lots of windmills to see the cost reductions. If you only wait
for technology to save you nothing will happen. Perhaps what you mean is
that you will wait for someone else to pay the initial cost and then jump
on the bandwagon once it is profitable?
> 2) Subsidies are not required.
Wind power has been subsidised for a long time and wouldn't be at the
point it is now without it.
> 3) As soon as wind is so competetive, we'll all switch to using it
> anyway, right ? Why would we pay more for fossil fuel ?
> 4) Installing inefficient plant now is a waste of money. Wait 5 years
> and then install the good stuff. Won't make any damn difference
> waiting 5 years a century or two hence.
If everyone thinks like that all producers of windmills will go bankrupt
today and you won't have anyone to buy from in five years.
> 5) We don't need Kyoto. We'll be closing fossil plants in 10 years
> time as we replace them with wind. So why bother with the treaty ?
If you believe that, Kyoto is on the other hand harmless, so why not just
as well sign it and make those of us who don't believe as fervently in
the blessings of the market happy?
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<cIU9b.6504$hF3.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> > news:825e2890.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<0HM9b.6124$BT1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > So wind power suffers the same investment problems as nuclear power
> > > then ? High capital costs with very low running costs ?
> >
> >
> > Not THAT high. The capital costs are a major cost compared to fossil
fueled
> > plants but the externalities are a much lower cost, so perhaps if
balances
> > out. As the reference below shows, the cost of operation is getting
> > competitive with fossil fuels and will probably match them within 5 to 7
> > years.
> >
> > http://www.risoe.dk/konferencer/energyconf/presentations/morthorst.pdf
>
> Interesting presentation.
>
> So with wind becoming " completely economically competetive " in the
> next 5 - 10 years, then what I've been saying over the past couple of
> years will be true :
> 1) Technology will come to save us.
Nope. We have to save ourselves. What it is saying is that the cost of wind
power will equal that of fossil fueled plants. This does not mean that wind
power will be built. They may build the fossil fuel plants since they are
the same price and more 'conventional'. In fact, they probably will.
> 2) Subsidies are not required.
Subsidies to the oil industry are not required but exist anyway. They are a
demonstration of political power, not economics. Certainly a minumum of
eight billion, up to 50B of direct subsidies depending on who you get to do
the accounting. All this in a business that brings in hundreds of billions
of dollars in profits and which is in no danger of economic hardship.
> 3) As soon as wind is so competetive, we'll all switch to using it
> anyway, right ? Why would we pay more for fossil fuel ?
Will we? Not so as I have seen. The tendency is to do what you have always
done and get what you have always gotten. Most business, including energy
companies, will opt for the traditional solution even if wind power was
cheaper. This is why changing corporate culture is one of the trickiest
management problems available.
> 4) Installing inefficient plant now is a waste of money. Wait 5 years
> and then install the good stuff. Won't make any damn difference
> waiting 5 years a century or two hence.
Replacing 30% thermal efficiency coal plants in the Mississippi valley with
60% efficient ones will have more impact on reducing smog and CO2 emissions
than the construction of wind power farms for the forseeable future.
> 5) We don't need Kyoto.
Need is relative. Kyoto COULD be done without the formal agreement easily
enough, but the need for international agreements is NOT to force change but
to 'validate' change so that the forces of inertia can be overcome. The
abiltiy to eliminate CFCs existed long before the Montreal Protocol. But
nothing happened of any major consequence precisely because there was no
*recognised* need to change. By adopting the protocol, it told everyone that
they could expect problems if they didn't get to work on the problem and
thus engaged the business community in the effort, resutling in a rapid
evolution of A/C technology.
> We'll be closing fossil plants in 10 years
> time as we replace them with wind. So why bother with the treaty ?
Wind is slow to be adopted, and will probably never reach more than a
Dave Simpson
> This is an interesting comment as we are having that debate here in my own
> back yard of Iowa.
Yep -- new wind farms are in the works there.
> Power companies have been building windmill farms in the rural areas of
> northwest and northcentral Iowa for the past several years. These units are
> in rural areas, usually surrounded by corn or bean fields with the only
> people living nearby being the farmers who sold/leased the property to the
> power company.
>
> Enter the environmentalist factions who claim that these windmills are an
> eyesore and make too much noise (the spinning blades can be heard a hundred
> yards away). They are threatening law suites to stop building new units and
> want the existing units removed.
>
> I cann't help but wonder if they believe what they say or if their goal is
> to keep people from getting the electricity they want.
Well, it certainly has been and remains predictable that if any
alternative is successful to any extent, the Usual Suspects who have
promoted the alternative because they're fighting what's conventional
will fight it, too.
While they're predictable and contemptible there are valid reasons
for concern about total reliance on something like wind and solar. In
the New York Times, it was reported that some people may be
reconsidering their (mindless) opposition to nuclear power production
after the hot summer in Europe, during which the air was still and the
wind farms didn't help meet the demand. And that's in a situation
where, such as in France, it was noted that many homes are without air
conditioning!
Where the wind energy is normally reliable and substantial, however,
it is at least worth considering. People just have to remember that
it's not going to be the end-all solution these days. (If anything,
it works as solar does, to help with peak load, not base load, the
"serious" stuff everyone ignores because it is peak load that is
associated with so many newsworthy events.)
And wherever it may actually be taken seriously, the Usual Suspects
will fight it, right on cue.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> > Most left-wing supporters of wind power and other things are typical
> > hypocrites and predictably are against alternative energy sources if
> > they ever promise to offer a chance of success. ...
[Iowa wind-farm projects are being met by some trouble.]
Cape Cod is the example I gave. If it ever were pursued, another
would be likely just south of Cape Mendocino in California, where
you'd get an invasion of ex-hippies, dimwit Arcata college-campus
residents, and professional protestors.
Too bad, as well as hypocritical.
Check out the map of California and the potential just south of Cape
Mendocino (in the northwest).
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind_power_50m.jpg
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind.html
Dave Simpson
John Ladasky
> It was written:
>
> > > Most left-wing supporters of wind power and other things are typical
> > > hypocrites and predictably are against alternative energy sources if
> > > they ever promise to offer a chance of success. ...
>
> [Iowa wind-farm projects are being met by some trouble.]
>
>
> Cape Cod is the example I gave. If it ever were pursued, another
> would be likely just south of Cape Mendocino in California, where
> you'd get an invasion of ex-hippies, dimwit Arcata college-campus
> residents, and professional protestors.
>
> Too bad, as well as hypocritical.
As well as bloody unlikely.
Every Green Party member that I know is quite delighted when they see
the windmills in Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass. There's also a
decent-sized wind farm out in Tehachapi Pass, near Los Angeles.
A few years ago, during the 1999-2001 fake energy crisis in
California, a few Greens were advocating ocean wave power generating
technology. There are several variations. A few are described here:
http://acre.murdoch.edu.au/refiles/wave/text.html
Of course, the big power companies hated it. Decentralized generators
producing about 0.1-1 MW each, and without using fossil fuels?
Horrors.
I don't know who these people are who are against wind power in their
back yards. But they're not any Greens that I know.
Conservation should still come first, of course. And Americans can be
unbelievable wastrels. I spent years lobbying California friends and
family members to install compact fluorescent light bulbs. It took
the fake energy crisis to really convince them. Meanwhile, here in
Maryland, I rented a room in my house to a college student who just
doesn't get it. Some of my first-hand experiences with his energy use
are documented here:
Some of the things that I didn't mention in those earlier articles
include his tendency to leave lights on when he leaves the house,
including the 300W halogen lamp in the living room, and lights in the
basement -- or, sometimes I'll come home and find his Playstation
video game console running -- and a few times, I've even found his 57"
television turned on. I've left a big note on the front door to
remind him, and he still doesn't check.
Bottom line summary: after living with a stranger for a year, I have
concluded that two people can live in the same climate, in the same
house. Both will tell you that they are comfortable. Yet one of the
two people may "need" to use 3-4 times as much energy as the other to
achieve that comfort.
Agreeing to a 50-50 utility bill sharing with this guy was an act of
blind trust, and among the biggest rental mistakes I have ever made
(yes, I've been a landlord a few times). This guy is a poster child
for why Americans *just might not* want to take the knee-jerk response
to energy shortages, and increase supply. There's plenty of work to
be done on the demand side.
Still, if I could have a windmill on my roof without pissing off my
neighbors and violating zoning laws (it's rather challenging on a 6000
square foot lot), I would. I'll just have to settle for solar at home
(under 18 months to installation, I estimate). Is there a good wind
site down the street from me? By all means, please use it.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth
John Ladasky
Baltimore," or some such thing.
Only yesterday, I, lad...@my-deja.com (John Ladasky) wrote in message news:<c09b237b.03091...@posting.google.com>...
AND just last might, I came home to find what? An unoccupied house in
the following state...
* 57" television turned on (est. 280W, from
http://www.800stereo.com/mittv.html)
* Sony Playstation turned on (est. 200W, since it's basically a PC)
* Kitchen lights left on (150W)
* Basement lights left on (160W)
* Windows all throughout first floor left open, even though I
specifically mentioned that I was leaving these windows open when I
left earlier in the day, and my tenant said that he would close them
when he left
* BUT, despite having missed all of the items mentioned above (the
windows being especially galling), SOMEHOW he had managed to switch on
the AIR CONDITIONING before leaving the house (est. 2.0 kW), even
though it was about 70 degrees outside...
Total power being expended ON NOTHING, in an empty house = 2.79 kW.
Last night was an exceptional night, but I will typically find at
least one light on when I get home, and the air conditioner set to
some ridiculously low temperature (I can feel cold air seeping out
around my front door before I open it!).
My tenant has taken a few vacations this summer -- to Miami and Las
Vegas. I was flabbergasted when he said he was going to these places.
I pointed out to him that both places were hotter than Baltimore.
His replies included the following remarks: "Well, I like it hot
*outside*," and "well, down in Miami I've got a condo where we keep
the air conditioner at 60 all the time."
We've had plenty of arguments about where to set the thermostat. I
favor 80 degrees in the day time and down to 75 when we get home, to
cool down the upstairs bedrooms. His reply: "Why wouldn't you want to
be comfortable? My family just keeps the air conditioning running all
the time." So, his folks are this way, too...
Sorry to extend my own rant, but there's plenty of electricity being
flat-out WASTED in this country by people who simply don't care.
K&N
of rent.
Since the utilities are currently free to him, he has no reason to care if
the lights are on, the AC is rolling full blast and the windows are open.
"John Ladasky" <lad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c09b237b.03092...@posting.google.com...
John Ladasky
> You can solve the problem by having your renter pay the utility bill instead
> of rent.
Well, since that was not in the original lease, renegotiating it would
have been very difficult. But we converted to a month-to-month a
short while ago, and I am selling this house. He has his notice to
vacate by October 31. My personal problem will end shortly.
> Since the utilities are currently free to him, he has no reason to care if
> the lights are on, the AC is rolling full blast and the windows are open.
Well, the utilities aren't exactly *free* -- he pays half of the bill,
which is the sort of agreement that any normal house-sharing lease
would make. The point is that a $150/month bite this summer (and a
similar bite this winter, when he turned the heat UP to 75 during our
huge snowstorms, so that he wouldn't have to wear a sweater in the
house) wasn't enough to get him to pay the least bit of attention.
And, since the electricity grid is a commons, and the air into which
the power plants spew is also a commons, we're all stuck with
supporting his habit, or the habits of people like him. We may be
closer to the source of the problem when we're sharing the same
electric meter, but we are almost never entirely free.
(Photovoltaics, here I come.)
Eric Swanson
I think you've hit on the problem. I've tried for years to convince people
that saving energy was important. Since most people are woefully ignorant
of science and technology, they don't really think much about the energy they
consume or the cost, as long as it's there when they hit the light switch or
drive into the gas station. This is especially true for younger people, such
as the new college graduates, who are getting salaries above $50k/year (or
whatever).
As the American Petroleum Institute pointed out in a presentation to the
Senate not long ago, the inflation adjusted price of gasoline at the pump in
1972 would be about $1.50 today, which is about what the current pump prices
have been. Same for the price of electricity, except in the recent California
crisis. In short, there is little or no incentive for most people to conserve,
since, at current prices, energy is only a small part of their income. So, we
see people buying big houses and driving gas guzzler SUV's to take the kids
to school, etc.
The logical solution would be for the Government to increase energy prices by
various means, including removing subsidies and increasing taxes, given the
impending shortages of oil and the big problem of increasing energy production
to meet the continuing growth in demand. Of course, any politician who tried
to do that would beout of a job. And, when the next crisis appears, everybody
will say, "Why didn't THEY do something?".
My answer will be, "We tried to tell you, but you didn't want to listen".
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
Why is it important?
--
One a 'em gud ol' boyz o'r 'ere gots hisse'f in ta da dreenk an' done
runned himz pickup treek inta 'at 'ere win'meal finy o'r 'ere. I done
saw it an' so I says ta 'is aver feelow 'at were bisides me, I says
ta'im: "That does appear at first glance, Charles, to be the sort of
juxtapositional reference to the classic Spanish literary work of
Cervantes which I could find highly useful in a future usenet post." So
me an' 'at guy 'at were bisides me 'at I done talked av afore, up 'ere,
does ya-all sees 'ere I is pointin' me finga?, anyways, later but good
an' fast, wez gots ta the seen a da axcident an' I says ta 'at aver
feelow 'at I keeps talkin' ta on akounts ta 'im bein' right nekst ta me,
I says, "The situation here at the accident does appear on first
assessment to, indeed, be very grave. Clearly he has driven his late
model, light blue, Ford F-150 pickup into this modern, clean, bird-safe
wind generation facility full tilt. Before performing first aid and
saving the poor man's life, I shall retrieve my Motorola mobile phone
from my automobile in order to place an urgent call for the high quality
emergency rescue personnel that our sky high local tax system helps to
perpetuate." Soz, 'at were 'at, an' I done gots 'is 'ere medal frum da
prazident av 'is 'ere Yoonited Stetz av 'Merikesch so az I cun provz 'at
it all done happen axect 'ike I says 'at it done.
-+Rulli Teltin' At Da Win'mealz
Eric Swanson
You don't know?
Well, I think there are several reasons.
To begin with, saving energy allows one to spend one's more of one's money in
other ways, many of which are more productive for the economy.
You should be aware that the U.S. is running out of cheap, easily available
sources of oil and natural gas.The next cheapest alternatives, more imports and
coal, have their own problems, such as supply insecurity and pollution. The
ultimate pollution problem from these sources of fossil carbon is global warming,
which may make profound changes to the entire planet.
Or, we could build many more nukes, which have their own problems, such as what to
do with the waste products and where to put all those plants. We could go for a
plutonium economy, but the terrorists would have a field day if we did and there
would always be the possibility of major accidents. Besides, much of the energy we
need is for transportation and electricity is not a good source for the kind of
vehicles we now use, like cars and airplanes. I know, you are going to say fuel
cells and hydrogen economy, but both are expensive and relatively unproven.
My favorites are solar based energy systems. After all, human civilization is
entirely solar powered today, as all people derive their food and thus their life
from plants. This fact is often forgotten by those who would destroy good
agricultural land for what they perceive to be beneficial economic development.
Ultimately, the entire Earth's fossil resources will be gone, so we'd better start
making the transition before it's too late. Otherwise, we are simply prolonging
the agony of a dying culture.
Ian St. John
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bkkaed$a01h$1...@news3.infoave.net...
<snip>
> Or, we could build many more nukes, which have their own problems, such as
what to
> do with the waste products and where to put all those plants.
Obviously a full cycle fuel supply with reprocessing and storage only of low
level radiation would be the best plan. Radioactinides can go into SNAP or
thermoelectricity for remote locations. Neutron activation of some waste
could cause power output from the waste before reprocessing for suitable
fuel species.
> We could go for a plutonium economy,
Plutonium is only one part of the total field.
> but the terrorists would have a field day if we did
Too broad a statement. For example, there is the thorium fuel power reactor
( where thorium is substituted for U238 as the fertile material. This leads
to production of plutonium that is NOT suitable for bomb making and which is
impossilbe to separate chemically and VERY difficult to separate out by
other methods as well. It become more of a challenge than finding U235 from
ore deposits.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25710
> and there would always be the possibility of major accidents.
In ANY industry. In the nuclear industry the number of deaths ( and risks)
from mining, construction, operation, etc as MUCH lower per megawatt than
for such industries as coal. Using either passive safe reactors ( and
restoing their funding ) or the heavy water type reactor ( which have
naturally long periods for overheating giving much longer reaction and
decision times ) along with containment there is little risk left.
> Besides, much of the energy we
> need is for transportation and electricity is not a good source for the
kind of
> vehicles we now use, like cars and airplanes.
Using electical power to produce a portable fuel ( such as methane, alcohol,
etc ) is not that much of a challenge.
> I know, you are going to say fuel
> cells and hydrogen economy, but both are expensive and relatively
unproven.
It think that "you are going to say" is highly indicative of a 'red
herring'. The fuel need not be hydrogen, which is the most promising but
problematic research. You do not get to choose the opponents weakest
arguments.
>
> My favorites are solar based energy systems. After all, human
civilization is
> entirely solar powered today, as all people derive their food and thus
their life
> from plants. This fact is often forgotten by those who would destroy good
> agricultural land for what they perceive to be beneficial economic
development.
That you have a favorite does not really matter here. Solar power has the
same 'portable fuel' problem that you claim for nuclear yet you support the
one and condemn the other. This is too plainly an irrational bias. In
reality, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, etc will all be used and wind is
probably the closest commercially feasible at this point. It is also
trivially true that solar is the ultimate *source* of all of our power and
the closer you go to the source, the better. Solar power satellites may be
the ultimate solution, but they have some problems in getting started.
>
> Ultimately, the entire Earth's fossil resources will be gone,
They will never be 'gone', just diluted. Lower concentrations means more
energy required to extract them. Higher use of power per unit of output is a
foregone conclusion. The real question is whehter power costs ( including
those externalised or subsidized ) will exceed the limits before we adapt. A
collapse is possible, even probable given our inabilty to PLAN for our
energy future except by military conquest..
> so we'd better start
> making the transition before it's too late. Otherwise, we are simply
prolonging
> the agony of a dying culture.
Cultuers die as a matter of nature. The question is the kind of culture that
will replace it. Hopefully one that is more attuned to the 'balance of
nature' or 'how to get along without fouling your own nest" and less on
brute force.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
><snip>
>> Or, we could build many more nukes, which have their own problems, such as
>>what to do with the waste products and where to put all those plants.
>> and there would always be the possibility of major accidents.
>
>In ANY industry. In the nuclear industry the number of deaths ( and risks)
>from mining, construction, operation, etc as MUCH lower per megawatt than
>for such industries as coal. Using either passive safe reactors ( and
>restoing their funding ) or the heavy water type reactor ( which have
>naturally long periods for overheating giving much longer reaction and
>decision times ) along with containment there is little risk left.
That has been true for western nuclear electric production, however, as
we learned at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, there is always the possibility
that things can go wildly wrong, with wide ranging impacts of long duration.
>> Besides, much of the energy we
>> need is for transportation and electricity is not a good source for the
>> kind of vehicles we now use, like cars and airplanes.
>
>Using electical power to produce a portable fuel ( such as methane, alcohol,
>etc ) is not that much of a challenge.
But making electricity is more expensive than other sources of motive fuel,
thus converting electricity to an intermediate storage, such as methanol,
ethanol or hydrogen is going to be much more expensive than the current
prices for transportation fuels.
>> I know, you are going to say fuel
>> cells and hydrogen economy, but both are expensive and relatively
>unproven.
>
>It think that "you are going to say" is highly indicative of a 'red
>herring'. The fuel need not be hydrogen, which is the most promising but
>problematic research. You do not get to choose the opponents weakest
>arguments.
Sure, there may be other fuel storage options besides hydrogen, but that's
the one proposed by the current U.S. Government (smile, Gee Dubyah).
>> My favorites are solar based energy systems. After all, human
>> civilization is entirely solar powered today, as all people derive their
>> food and thus their life from plants. This fact is often forgotten by
>> those who would destroy good agricultural land for what they perceive to
>> be beneficial economic development.
>
>That you have a favorite does not really matter here. Solar power has the
>same 'portable fuel' problem that you claim for nuclear yet you support the
>one and condemn the other. This is too plainly an irrational bias. In
>reality, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, etc will all be used and wind is
>probably the closest commercially feasible at this point. It is also
>trivially true that solar is the ultimate *source* of all of our power and
>the closer you go to the source, the better. Solar power satellites may be
>the ultimate solution, but they have some problems in getting started.
Not really. Solar in the form of biomass does not depend upon the production
of expensive electricity. Ethanol is an option, which if produced from non-
food plant sources, may be cheaper than hydrogen. Especially if the ethanol
is low grade 90% pure, thus bypassing the last stage of purification. Last
I heard, mixing ethanol with gasoline required 100 pure ethanol, else there
is a tendency for the ethanol to separate from the gasoline.
Also, low temperature solar thermal energy is ALREADY cost effective, if one
is willing to amortize the cost over the lifetime of a structure built to
utilize it. Trouble is, most people don't stay in one place long enough
to "realize" the gain after the costs are paid off. And, the new home
market, for example, is focused upon the initial cost of a structure, not
the life cycle cost of the structure, therefore, most new construction is
done as cheaply as possible. Even relatively low cost options, such as
extra insulation and siting to place the structure for maximum solar gain,
are ignored. The same may be said for adding extra south facing windows
and including efficient appliances (such as water heaters, furnaces, heat
pumps or air conditioners).
>> Ultimately, the entire Earth's fossil resources will be gone,
>
>They will never be 'gone', just diluted. Lower concentrations means more
>energy required to extract them. Higher use of power per unit of output is a
>foregone conclusion. The real question is whehter power costs ( including
>those externalised or subsidized ) will exceed the limits before we adapt. A
>collapse is possible, even probable given our inabilty to PLAN for our
>energy future except by military conquest..
Sure, there will always be oil and gas in the ground somewhere, but the cost
(or, more precisely, the energy required to recover the resource) will be
greater than the energy content of the fossil fuel recovered. Our entire
economic system is based upon short term thinking, as the discounting process
reduces long term future values to nil. Only the electric power producers
think of the lifetime costs when they make their choices, as they build
for a 40 or 50 year life cycle.
Bill Bonde
Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> In article <fBtbb.2208$1H3....@news20.bellglobal.com>, ist...@spamcop.net says...
> >
> >
> >"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
> ><snip>
> >> Or, we could build many more nukes, which have their own problems, such as
> >>what to do with the waste products and where to put all those plants.
> [cut]
> >> and there would always be the possibility of major accidents.
> >
> >In ANY industry. In the nuclear industry the number of deaths ( and risks)
> >from mining, construction, operation, etc as MUCH lower per megawatt than
> >for such industries as coal. Using either passive safe reactors ( and
> >restoing their funding ) or the heavy water type reactor ( which have
> >naturally long periods for overheating giving much longer reaction and
> >decision times ) along with containment there is little risk left.
>
> That has been true for western nuclear electric production, however, as
> we learned at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, there is always the possibility
> that things can go wildly wrong, with wide ranging impacts of long duration.
>
What long term impact environmentally did Three Mile Island have?
> >> Besides, much of the energy we
> >> need is for transportation and electricity is not a good source for the
> >> kind of vehicles we now use, like cars and airplanes.
> >
> >Using electical power to produce a portable fuel ( such as methane, alcohol,
> >etc ) is not that much of a challenge.
>
> But making electricity is more expensive than other sources of motive fuel,
> thus converting electricity to an intermediate storage, such as methanol,
> ethanol or hydrogen is going to be much more expensive than the current
> prices for transportation fuels.
>
Methane is a very good greenhouse gas that puts CO2 to shame. If only
10% of the methane used to replace fossil fuels were to escape from
source to end use unburned, and that's a very real possibility, you'd
see more green house effect than you currently get from burning the
fossil fuels.
> >> I know, you are going to say fuel
> >> cells and hydrogen economy, but both are expensive and relatively
> >unproven.
> >
> >It think that "you are going to say" is highly indicative of a 'red
> >herring'. The fuel need not be hydrogen, which is the most promising but
> >problematic research. You do not get to choose the opponents weakest
> >arguments.
>
> Sure, there may be other fuel storage options besides hydrogen, but that's
> the one proposed by the current U.S. Government (smile, Gee Dubyah).
>
Hydrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.
> >> My favorites are solar based energy systems. After all, human
> >> civilization is entirely solar powered today, as all people derive their
> >> food and thus their life from plants. This fact is often forgotten by
> >> those who would destroy good agricultural land for what they perceive to
> >> be beneficial economic development.
> >
> >That you have a favorite does not really matter here. Solar power has the
> >same 'portable fuel' problem that you claim for nuclear yet you support the
> >one and condemn the other. This is too plainly an irrational bias. In
> >reality, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, etc will all be used and wind is
> >probably the closest commercially feasible at this point. It is also
> >trivially true that solar is the ultimate *source* of all of our power and
> >the closer you go to the source, the better. Solar power satellites may be
> >the ultimate solution, but they have some problems in getting started.
>
> Not really. Solar in the form of biomass does not depend upon the production
> of expensive electricity. Ethanol is an option, which if produced from non-
> food plant sources, may be cheaper than hydrogen. Especially if the ethanol
> is low grade 90% pure, thus bypassing the last stage of purification. Last
> I heard, mixing ethanol with gasoline required 100 pure ethanol, else there
> is a tendency for the ethanol to separate from the gasoline.
>
There also seem to be issues in burning the mixture in some engines.
> Also, low temperature solar thermal energy is ALREADY cost effective, if one
> is willing to amortize the cost over the lifetime of a structure built to
> utilize it. Trouble is, most people don't stay in one place long enough
> to "realize" the gain after the costs are paid off. And, the new home
> market, for example, is focused upon the initial cost of a structure, not
> the life cycle cost of the structure, therefore, most new construction is
> done as cheaply as possible. Even relatively low cost options, such as
> extra insulation and siting to place the structure for maximum solar gain,
> are ignored.
>
Homes are put on lots and they are made as small as possible to maximize
profit. If people built homes on lots which had the homes all attached
at the back and fanning out in a star formation, then people would have
more green space, more privacy and better efficiency because the back of
their building wouldn't need to be heated.
> The same may be said for adding extra south facing windows
> and including efficient appliances (such as water heaters, furnaces, heat
> pumps or air conditioners).
>
> >> Ultimately, the entire Earth's fossil resources will be gone,
> >
> >They will never be 'gone', just diluted. Lower concentrations means more
> >energy required to extract them. Higher use of power per unit of output is a
> >foregone conclusion. The real question is whehter power costs ( including
> >those externalised or subsidized ) will exceed the limits before we adapt. A
> >collapse is possible, even probable given our inabilty to PLAN for our
> >energy future except by military conquest..
>
> Sure, there will always be oil and gas in the ground somewhere, but the cost
> (or, more precisely, the energy required to recover the resource) will be
> greater than the energy content of the fossil fuel recovered. Our entire
> economic system is based upon short term thinking, as the discounting process
> reduces long term future values to nil. Only the electric power producers
> think of the lifetime costs when they make their choices, as they build
> for a 40 or 50 year life cycle.
>
Every year that goes by, technology improves and this will eventually
make alternatives economical. Trying to force them on early is absurd,
at least in the total.
Ian St. John
"Bill Bonde" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F6F2CC9...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> >
> > In article <fBtbb.2208$1H3....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
ist...@spamcop.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
> > ><snip>
> > >> Or, we could build many more nukes, which have their own problems,
such as
> > >>what to do with the waste products and where to put all those plants.
> > [cut]
> > >> and there would always be the possibility of major accidents.
> > >
> > >In ANY industry. In the nuclear industry the number of deaths ( and
risks)
> > >from mining, construction, operation, etc as MUCH lower per megawatt
than
> > >for such industries as coal. Using either passive safe reactors ( and
> > >restoing their funding ) or the heavy water type reactor ( which have
> > >naturally long periods for overheating giving much longer reaction and
> > >decision times ) along with containment there is little risk left.
> >
> > That has been true for western nuclear electric production, however, as
> > we learned at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, there is always the
possibility
> > that things can go wildly wrong, with wide ranging impacts of long
duration.
> >
> What long term impact environmentally did Three Mile Island have?
Rather, what long term impact COULD it have had. I have yet to see any
authoritative conclusions that deny the 'china syndrome' risk of the reactor
melting it's way into the local ground water and causing a steam explosion
or even of cracking the containment vessel by a sufficiently large hydrogen
bubble.
TMI is NOT an example of what 'could have happened' but only of 'whewww, we
missed by... ' You also ignore the dangers posed by recently discovered
corrosion that almost let contaminated coolant out and might have led to a
meltdown with no chance of stopping it. The risks are real. I just think
that we now have the 'experience' to build a safe nuclear industry in a
'second wave'. As with any technology we discover things during the 'beta
test' of the first designs.
> > >> Besides, much of the energy we
> > >> need is for transportation and electricity is not a good source for
the
> > >> kind of vehicles we now use, like cars and airplanes.
> > >
> > >Using electical power to produce a portable fuel ( such as methane,
alcohol,
> > >etc ) is not that much of a challenge.
> >
> > But making electricity is more expensive than other sources of motive
fuel,
> > thus converting electricity to an intermediate storage, such as
methanol,
> > ethanol or hydrogen is going to be much more expensive than the current
> > prices for transportation fuels.
> >
> Methane is a very good greenhouse gas that puts CO2 to shame.
Please check the difference between methane ( CH4) and methanol (CH3OH) or
ethanol ( CH5OH ).
> If only
> 10% of the methane used to replace fossil fuels were to escape from
> source to end use unburned, and that's a very real possibility, you'd
> see more green house effect than you currently get from burning the
> fossil fuels.
As this is based on an error in reading the prior paragraph, the conclusions
here are invalid as well.
> > >> I know, you are going to say fuel
> > >> cells and hydrogen economy, but both are expensive and relatively
> > >unproven.
> > >
> > >It think that "you are going to say" is highly indicative of a 'red
> > >herring'. The fuel need not be hydrogen, which is the most promising
but
> > >problematic research. You do not get to choose the opponents weakest
> > >arguments.
> >
> > Sure, there may be other fuel storage options besides hydrogen, but
that's
> > the one proposed by the current U.S. Government (smile, Gee Dubyah).
> >
> >
> Hydrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.
Not the point. He was switching the arguments to hydrogen basically because
it is the most problematic portable fuel, having problems in generation,
storage, and power density. Generation of an alcohol is much more feasible
as a portable energy source. Non-portable energy is almost all electricity.
Note: Recent developments may make the coal to hydrogen generation with
mineral sequestration much more efficient and easier to design. The biggest
problem has been the problematical extraction of the CO2 at high temperature
and high pressure for mineral sequestration. The suggested
calcining/absorbtion cycle of removing the CO2 had many problems.
A recent solution seems to have been made with a porous hydrogen 'filter'
that removes the hydrogen from the CO2 and allows for separation in a much
more effeicient and effective way. It is liikely to be a 'solid electrolyte'
which passes hydrogen at high temperature in a manner similar to that of
Ytrium/Zirconium oxide ceramics passing oxygen exclusively. Probably a
development of the solid electrolytes for high temperature fuel cells.
Not really, at least at the E10 or E15 level. Pure ethanol takes some
adjustments, of course, but you aren't likely to burn E90 in an engine not
designed specifically for it.
> > Also, low temperature solar thermal energy is ALREADY cost effective, if
one
> > is willing to amortize the cost over the lifetime of a structure built
to
> > utilize it. Trouble is, most people don't stay in one place long enough
> > to "realize" the gain after the costs are paid off.
Rather, they cannot extract the capital costs from the sale as the average
consumer is indifferent to such 'frills'. He is much more likely to value a
backyard pool, or a finished basement. This requires an attitude adjustment
that would come when it becomes more common and the culture starts to demand
passive solar in every home. It is very effective for water heating, for
example, but the units tend to be 'unsightly'. Culture is probalby more
important to solar thermal as equity than engineering.
> > And, the new home
> > market, for example, is focused upon the initial cost of a structure,
not
> > the life cycle cost of the structure, therefore, most new construction
is
> > done as cheaply as possible.
I've made that point many times, especially in the issue of insulation
values which are hard to change after finishing, unlike solar thermal which
may be an 'add-on'.
> > Even relatively low cost options, such as
> > extra insulation and siting to place the structure for maximum solar
gain,
> > are ignored.
> >
> Homes are put on lots and they are made as small as possible to maximize
> profit.
?? Really? I thought the move was to the 'monster home' which takes almost
every square foot of the property leaving only the required separation.
Maybe it has to do with land prices. High prices tend to make for larger
homes as the cost is in the land but the consumer sees the value of the
building.
> If people built homes on lots which had the homes all attached
> at the back and fanning out in a star formation, then people would have
> more green space, more privacy and better efficiency because the back of
> their building wouldn't need to be heated.
This is interesting but I see a number of problems with it. The
'semi-detached' home is a similar and more conventional solution and you
know how people pay more for detached homes. Also, the shape is not suitable
to the usual road system.
> > The same may be said for adding extra south facing windows
> > and including efficient appliances (such as water heaters, furnaces,
heat
> > pumps or air conditioners).
> >
> > >> Ultimately, the entire Earth's fossil resources will be gone,
> > >
> > >They will never be 'gone', just diluted. Lower concentrations means
more
> > >energy required to extract them. Higher use of power per unit of output
is a
> > >foregone conclusion. The real question is whehter power costs
including
> > >those externalised or subsidized ) will exceed the limits before we
adapt. A
> > >collapse is possible, even probable given our inabilty to PLAN for our
> > >energy future except by military conquest..
> >
> > Sure, there will always be oil and gas in the ground somewhere, but the
cost
> > (or, more precisely, the energy required to recover the resource) will
be
> > greater than the energy content of the fossil fuel recovered. Our
entire
> > economic system is based upon short term thinking, as the discounting
process
> > reduces long term future values to nil. Only the electric power
producers
> > think of the lifetime costs when they make their choices, as they build
> > for a 40 or 50 year life cycle.
> >
> Every year that goes by, technology improves and this will eventually
> make alternatives economical. Trying to force them on early is absurd,
> at least in the total.
Both points are true at least on surface. The extractable energy will, at
some point, be lower than the input energy. And technology will make more
energy extractable from sources that are uneconomical today. I believe that
the main point overlooked here is that we are NOT devoping the new sources
fast enough and that we ARE using up the easily available ones at a
*PRODIGIOUS* rate that will leave little time for such developments.
Dave Simpson
> What long term impact environmentally did Three Mile Island have?
None.
Politically? Quite a bit among the ignorant and as fodder for the
dishonest, but exploitation of ignorance really took off with the
Chernobyl disaster.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Both points are true at least on surface. The extractable energy will, at
> some point, be lower than the input energy. And technology will make more
> energy extractable from sources that are uneconomical today. I believe that
> the main point overlooked here is that we are NOT devoping the new sources
> fast enough and that we ARE using up the easily available ones at a
> *PRODIGIOUS* rate that will leave little time for such developments.
You, who have a habit of being wrong, aren't quite so wrong this
time.
I have stated elsewhere, in the past, that "the oil will run out"
insofar as its recovery is economic. (Never mind that we have idiots
in our government who insist we not make proper and best use of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, nor exploit those resources we know
exist and could be recovered, but aren't due to misguided politics.)
The big question will be whether or not fuel cell progress gets us
into an era of electric automobiles that don't have a range that is
pathetic, and can be refueled easily and quickly. (When I told
someone once how in order to have alternative vehicles be accepted,
they must become acceptable, meaning they have comparable performance
and cost to existing, conventional automobiles. Her reply was dippy:
"We need to reconsider our priorities..." No, Dippy; we need
alternatives that actually make sense.)
In the meantime, for transportation we continue to rely and depend
upon petroleum, and we're scheduled to triple our imports in the next
twenty years. What happens to international goodwill (not a joke,
despite the human jokes who currently bash Bush's "unilateralism")
when East Asia, especially China, come to increase their petroleum
usage at far more *PRODIGIOUS* an increase than us?
Dave Simpson
John Ladasky
> I've tried for years to convince people
> that saving energy was important. Since most people are woefully ignorant
> of science and technology, they don't really think much about the energy they
> consume or the cost, as long as it's there when they hit the light switch or
> drive into the gas station. This is especially true for younger people, such
> as the new college graduates, who are getting salaries above $50k/year (or
> whatever).
Even if they don't have the salaries, this just doesn't register as a
cost for many (mostly younger) people I have met recently. My renter
isn't the only one, nor are his parents. I didn't expect to
experience this severe of a situation, but I have seen this behavior
in others.
Pretty much every house in the country can cut its electrical use by
5% - 10% by replacing all lights with compact fluorescent bulbs (I've
already done this in my California house -- the Maryland house has two
dimmer siwtches that I haven't found the time to replace). Another 5%
- 10% can be saved by replacing the average refrigerator with a more
recent, Energy Star rated model. (In this case, I have the flip
situation -- the Maryland house has the new appliances, and I have yet
to purchase them for the California house).
My renter could probably save 50% of his electrical use by remembering
two simple rules of life: 1) turn stuff off when you leave the house,
and 2) you don't HAVE to sleep clothed, under your comforter, in the
summer time.
> As the American Petroleum Institute pointed out in a presentation to the
> Senate not long ago, the inflation adjusted price of gasoline at the pump in
> 1972 would be about $1.50 today, which is about what the current pump prices
> have been. Same for the price of electricity, except in the recent California
> crisis.
The jump in California energy prices a few years back didn't anger me
so much as the fact that they were manipulated to that level by
businesses who 1) used anti-competitive tactics, and 2) who used their
amassed capital to buy out the green energy producers that
environmentalists were promised for their cooperation with electricity
"deregulation". (I was a customer of a 100% green power company, for
the year that it existed. They owned a little generating capacity,
but they were mostly reselling power from solar, wind, and biomass
plants that were owned by still other companies. The goal was to
amass enough capital to eventually buy the sources. But Calpine,
Enron, Dynegy, Duke, et. al. bought up these renewable sources and
then *refused* to resell to the little guys. The Big Guys had bigger,
more important customers, I guess. Good bye, environmental consumer
choice. We were all dumped back to PG&E.)
If I paid the same prices, but the windfall was being used to fund
conservation and renewable energy, I would be happy to pay.
> In short, there is little or no incentive for most people to
> conserve, since, at current prices, energy is only a small part of their
> income. So, we see people buying big houses and driving gas guzzler SUV's to
> take the kids to school, etc.
>
> The logical solution would be for the Government to increase energy prices by
> various means, including removing subsidies and increasing taxes, given the
> impending shortages of oil and the big problem of increasing energy
> production to meet the continuing growth in demand.
There are enormous externalized costs that we pay through taxes,
health care bills, etc., that are the consequence of our modes of
energy use. I'd like to see these costs accounted for, and collected
as an energy tax. We can reduce the general sales and income taxes to
compensate. This position is found in many a Green Party platform.
> Of course, any
> politician who tried to do that would be out of a job.
Indeed. And do you know what the enraged voters would call this
traitor to the American Dream of Ostensibly (If Not, In Fact,
Actually) Cheap Energy? French.
> And, when the next crisis appears, everybody
> will say, "Why didn't THEY do something?".
>
> My answer will be, "We tried to tell you, but you didn't want to listen".
They haven't wanted to listen for 30 years now. It's the three-decade
anniversary of the Great Oil Embargo this year.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
>
> > Both points are true at least on surface. The extractable energy will,
at
> > some point, be lower than the input energy. And technology will make
more
> > energy extractable from sources that are uneconomical today. I believe
that
> > the main point overlooked here is that we are NOT devoping the new
sources
> > fast enough and that we ARE using up the easily available ones at a
> > *PRODIGIOUS* rate that will leave little time for such developments.
>
> You, who have a habit of being wrong, aren't quite so wrong this
> time.
Gee. I'm hurt. You usually go to the extent of praising me with faint damns
rather than damning me with faint praise as here.
>
> I have stated elsewhere, in the past, that "the oil will run out"
> insofar as its recovery is economic.
And the point is that the economics are not improving as fast as the
depletion. I keep trying to put forth this simple point and you keep going
off into 'academic twists and turns' based on nothing more substantial than
a faith in future technology.
> (Never mind that we have idiots
> in our government who insist we not make proper and best use of the
> Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, nor exploit those resources we know
> exist and could be recovered, but aren't due to misguided politics.)
I expect that their politics is less misguided than yours.
> The big question will be whether or not fuel cell progress gets us
> into an era of electric automobiles that don't have a range that is
> pathetic, and can be refueled easily and quickly.
There are many paths to this goal and who knows what the future holds. It
will almost certainly not hold a purely electic car unless they bury power
transfer into the roadbed. An alcohol based hybrid or fuel cell is much more
likely as is a hydrogen powered fuel cell ( using sodium borohydride in
water solution ) assuming a breakthough in the conversion process.
> (When I told
> someone once how in order to have alternative vehicles be accepted,
> they must become acceptable, meaning they have comparable performance
> and cost to existing, conventional automobiles. Her reply was dippy:
> "We need to reconsider our priorities..." No, Dippy; we need
> alternatives that actually make sense.)
I do think that a reduction in range or power would be acceptable as long as
it was still reasoonalbe. Not all cars are equipped with massive fuel tanks
to ensure a 1,000km range. Ranges of 300km or more would probably be
acceptable to the public in return for a clean fuel. If it were available,
of course.
>
> In the meantime, for transportation we continue to rely and depend
> upon petroleum, and we're scheduled to triple our imports in the next
> twenty years.
Triple your inports and you won't HAVE twenty years. The middle east is good
for about 15 years at current world consumption rates and it has 95% of the
exportable oil.
> What happens to international goodwill (not a joke,
> despite the human jokes who currently bash Bush's "unilateralism")
> when East Asia, especially China, come to increase their petroleum
> usage at far more *PRODIGIOUS* an increase than us?
I expect that the ability of a socialist government to make fiat decisions,
and the lack of extensive existing infrastructure, will allow them to adapt
more quickly than the West to declining resources. The problem, by the way,
is not so much a sudden stoppage but a decline in oil supplies as production
decreases and a subsequent increase in retail prices past what the consumer
can afford easily. Other sources besides the middle east oil pools will be
available but they will be a SMALL TRICKLE of oil relative to the current
usage rates requriing MASSIVE amounts of capital that will be hard to find.
>
>
> Dave Simpson