Efficiency, Conservation, Correlation and Causality.
Jim Blair
Edward Flaherty <flahe...@earthlink.net> posted the claim that
increased energy efficiency would not be expected to reduce overall
energy consumption.
Why? Because when you use energy more efficiently, you save money.
And then you spend that "extra" money you saved on something else
(which also uses energy to make). Or else you invest the "extra"
money, (bank, mutual fund, bonds, CD) and it is then used to expand
production or to build new factories or houses or whatever. And all
of these will consume energy.
This became discussed as "Why saving doesn't save anything" or "Why
conservation doesn't conserve anything".
Jim Blair:
> You asked the point of this thread. It is not that increased energy
> efficiency does "no good". It is that increasing energy efficiency will
> not reduce overall energy consumption.
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> That is *some* peoples assumption, and it does not fit. If my dryer takes
> half as much power, I do not suddenly develop an urge to go out and buy
> something to use the 'missing' power.
Edward Flaherty:
No, I doubt you do and neither do I. But that more efficient dryer
translates into some extra cash sitting around. What are you going
to do with it? If you spend it on additional goods and services, then
you're indirectly consuming some of the dryer's energy savings. If
you bank it, then the bank will lend it to someone who will spend
it on goods or capital that will also indirectly use some of your dryer's
energy savings.
If labor suddenly became twice as productive, would widespread
unemployment result? Of course not. The analysis does not change
when we're talking about a piece of capital, such as a dryer or an
air conditioner.
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> pointed out that over the last
100 years, from 1900 to 2000 ...
> US real GDP has grown about 18-fold.
> Total US energy consumption has grown about 9-fold.
> The physical component of GDP measured by weight has remained flat or
maybe even fallen somewhat (one of Alan Greenspan's favorite
statistics).
> US population has grown about 3.6-fold.
The increase in the GDP/energy consumption ratio was cited af proof
that the US has become more energy efficient during that time.
Think of the US (or any other) economy as a machine that converts
energy into GDP. Or better, that uses energy to convert "raw
materials" into "wealth" that is measured in dollars and reported
as GDP.
I claim that the "causes" of "energy efficiency" as well as the
definition of "conservation" became muddled in the thread.
philip....@polymtl.ca (Philip Coletsos) wrote:
>Let's clarify that shall we? In most respects, "increasing efficiency"
>is synonymous with "conserving".
Gregory White
>
>There might be some definition problems with conservation.
>As an aggregate though, it's
>not energy conservation until energy use flattens and declines.
Jim Blair:
Do you DEFINE energy conservation as a decline in the total
energy used in the country?
I think most people say that they have "conserved energy" when they do
something that uses less energy than if they had not done it. Like
walking to the store or taking the bus, instead of driving. Or getting
a more efficient AC or furnace, etc. They think they have "conserved",
even if the net result is that they consume more energy.
My wife is always "saving" by getting "2 for 1" deals or 20% discounts.
The more we spend, the more we save.
I recently told her that we can't afford to save all this money.
Gregory White
>> >Melt down one person's Ford Excursion and make four small cars for four people.
>> >All four are wealthier (or less poor) and safer on the highway.
jeb:
Will 4 small cars burn more gas than one large one?
Gregory White
>
>The humanMilesTraveled/energyUnit ratio will easily favor the smaller cars in the USAs
>current transportation paradigm.
??? But I bet the TOTAL energy used by 4 small cars (and 4 drivers) will
increase relative to one large car.
Back to what it means to "conserve".
IS THIS REVERSIBLE?
Tony Prentakis ("tonyp" <to...@world.std.com>) suggested that if
increasing energy efficiency does not save energy, then by symmetry,
decreasing energy would not waste energy. If "saving doesn't save
anything", then "wasting doesn't waste anything".
While that sounds logical at first hearing, I think that it is
not true. To see why, you must look into the causes of
energy efficiency. While correlations can be established from
empirical data, causality is much more difficult to establish.
See for example:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/cause.txt
I say that the overall "energy efficiency" of the economy is greater
now than in 1900 because the "constant dollar GDP/annual energy
consumption" is greater.
That is, overall, the economy produces more inflation corrected GDP per
calorie now than it did in 1900. End of that story.
That does not mean that each aspect of the economy is more energy
efficient now than it was then. And very likely the personal
transportation (as opposed to goods and products transportation) is
less efficient today. (But bicycles are also popular today).
I think it is true that the "overall energy efficiency of the economy"
could ALSO be determined by determining the energy efficiency of each
component of the economy and then compiling a weighted average of these.
This would be much harder, and the data is less likely to exist for both
1900 and 2000. But if done, it should show the same result as the ratio
of the gross data.
While the increased energy efficiency of the economy is measured by
the GDP/energy ratio, it is CAUSED by increases in the efficiency of
millions of individual devices and processes. And they have become
more efficient because of advances in technology.
So increased energy efficiency would be the expected trend with
the passage of time and the advance of technology. And (as Ed
Flaherty explained) this would be expected to occur along with
increased energy consumption. And this result has actually been
the situation in the USA for the last 100 years, as Grinch
reported.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY REDUCTIONS?
So then how can energy efficiency be reduced? Would a new
technology that was less energy efficient replace one that was
more efficient? Would people forget how to make the efficient
product or process and revert to the older less efficient one?
But there have been instances of reductions in the energy
efficiency in some special cases. Car average fuel efficiency
(CAFE) in the US in recent years, for example.
Why? Did the auto companies forget how to make higher milage
cars? No, people had less interest in buying them, because
gasoline was cheap.
From this example, I claim that reductions in energy efficiency
don't "just happen". but are caused by changes in consumer
attitudes. In effect, reductions in energy efficiency are CAUSED
by lower energy prices. So Tony's suggestion that lower energy
efficiency will reduce energy consumption is not likely to be the
case.
Cheap energy is likely to cause both a reduction in some average
efficienies AND increases in energy consumption.
While the natural progression is for both greater energy efficiency
and increased energy consumption.
Has US energy consumption ever actually fallen? Yes, during the
late 1970's and early 1980's. And this while overall energy
efficiency probably increased. Because higher energy prices
promote interest in greater energy efficiency and "conservation"
(that is reduced consumption).
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
Anonymous
energy consumption.
The extra money is invested in other things to allow
a better standard of living or support population
growth.
Jim Blair wrote:
>
> Efficiency, Conservation, Correlation and Causality.
>
> Edward Flaherty <flahe...@earthlink.net> posted the claim that
> increased energy efficiency would not be expected to reduce overall
> energy consumption.
>
> Why? Because when you use energy more efficiently, you save money.
> And then you spend that "extra" money you saved on something else
> (which also uses energy to make). Or else you invest the "extra"
> money, (bank, mutual fund, bonds, CD) and it is then used to expand
> production or to build new factories or houses or whatever. And all
> of these will consume energy.
>
> This became discussed as "Why saving doesn't save anything" or "Why
> conservation doesn't conserve anything".
>
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
tonyp
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in part:
> From this example, I claim that reductions in energy efficiency
> don't "just happen". but are caused by changes in consumer
> attitudes. In effect, reductions in energy efficiency are CAUSED
> by lower energy prices. So Tony's suggestion that lower energy
> efficiency will reduce energy consumption is not likely to be the
> case.
Jim, my point was _not_ that lower efficiency will reduce energy
consumption. My point was that this is _Ed_Flaherty's_ argument, except
in reverse. If you have convinced yourself that Ed's argument is both
correct and not reversible, then you must believe in a graph like this:
The Y axis is aggregate energy consumption, X axis is average
thermodynamic efficiency. "Now" is a point on this graph. The plot of
consumption versus efficiency is a curve passing through "now". The curve
has this remarkable property: it has a minimum at "now", and if you
change efficiency from what it is "now", in _either_ direction, the curve
carries you to higher consumption. IOW, as Tom Thress pointed out, we
must "now" be at optimum energy efficiency. That would be plausible only
if there was anything special about now.
To forestall confusion, let me repeat: the above is what I understand
_you_ to imply. I don't think you actually believe it just as it stands.
I recognize that this two-dimensional graph (whatever the curve may
actually look like) is only a cross-section through a multidimensional
space. For instance, the Z axis might be GDP. The plot of consumption
versus both efficiency and GDP is then a surface in 3-D space. What
surface? Well, as Z increases the surface rises -- we agree on that, I
think. If we move away from the point "now" in the +Z direction, keeping
the value of X (efficiency) constant, we move to higher Y (consumption) on
the surface. But that has nothing to do with the relationship between
efficiency and consumption -- we kept efficiency constant, remember?
To buy Ed's argument, I would have to believe that efficiency and GDP
cannot be changed _independently_. There is some function, in the X-Z
plane, which constrains how efficiency relates to GDP, so that if we move
away from "now" we must move along a curved path of some sort, whose
projection on the surface leads uphill in both directions. I'm not sure
that even this avoids the problem of "now" being some sort of magical
optimum, though.
In any case, since I can't visualize 4-D or higher, I better stop here.
Thanks for the synopsis of a very interesting thread.
-- Tony Prentakis
Jim Blair
>Energy efficiency DOES reduce overall PER CAPITA
>energy consumption.
Hi,
From 1900 to 2000:
> US real GDP has grown about 18-fold.
> Total US energy consumption has grown about 9-fold.
> US population has grown about 3.6-fold.
Thus percapita energy consumption increased by 2.5 times (more than
doubled).
>
>The extra money is invested in other things to allow
>a better standard of living or support population
>growth.
>
Or, in this case, both.
PS Sorry if my original got posted twice. I had my trigger set on
automatic :-(
Anonymous
> From 1900 to 2000:
>
> > US real GDP has grown about 18-fold.
> > Total US energy consumption has grown about 9-fold.
> > US population has grown about 3.6-fold.
>
> Thus percapita energy consumption increased by 2.5 times (more than
> doubled).
But you can't count the energy that CORPORATIONS
use in per capita energy consumption!
Per capita energy use varies greatly depending
on what industry you're in. For "heavy industries"
where a small amount of people operate huge machines
like monster sized dump trucks and cranes the per
capita energy consumption is huge, but the efficiencies
can also be huge because of economies of scale!
Note that even in your own figures, real GDP has doubled,
but energy use has only gone up half that amount!
Therefore energy use per dollar GDP is decreasing!
Also, your assumption of per capita energy use assumes
that it is the United States population which uses
ALL the goods and services it produces. This is clearly
NOT the case! Other countries import these goods and
services. It's only fair that if someone in some foreign
country purchases a computer from Dell, that the energy
used to manufacture that computer be counted for the
foreign country and NOT the United States, because in effect
the product has been made to satisfy some person's demand
in a foreign country!
This is why the Kyoto treaty which places virtually all
of the burden for controlling greenhouse gases on the United
States is totally hypocritical. It is the United States
which leads the world in GDP output. It is the United States
which is producing the goods and services that OTHER countries
can USE for THEMSELVES! Why should we bear all the cost of
regulations, when they continue to buy the products that we produce
on their behalf?
Jim Blair
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in part:
>> From this example, I claim that reductions in energy efficiency
>> don't "just happen". but are caused by changes in consumer
>> attitudes. In effect, reductions in energy efficiency are CAUSED
>> by lower energy prices. So Tony's suggestion that lower energy
>> efficiency will reduce energy consumption is not likely to be the
>> case.
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Jim, my point was _not_ that lower efficiency will reduce energy
>consumption. My point was that this is _Ed_Flaherty's_ argument, except
>in reverse.
Hi,
And I am saying that Ed's argument does not run in reverse.
>...If you have convinced yourself that Ed's argument is both
>correct and not reversible, then you must believe in a graph like this:
>
>The Y axis is aggregate energy consumption, X axis is average
>thermodynamic efficiency. "Now" is a point on this graph. The plot of
>consumption versus efficiency is a curve passing through "now". The curve
>has this remarkable property: .....
It has a hysteresis effect. The relationship between X and Y is not the
same "going up" as it is "going down" the X axis. (Or so I claim :-)
Hysteresis is fairly common in some fields, but (like non-linearity)seems
strange to those who have not encountered it before.
>....it has a minimum at "now", and if you
>change efficiency from what it is "now", in _either_ direction, the curve
>carries you to higher consumption.
An increase in "overall energy efficiency" (the result of increases in
many specific efficiencies due to advances in technology) is very
different from a decrease in "overall energy efficiency" because it would
be the result of different causes.
>.....IOW, as Tom Thress pointed out, we
>must "now" be at optimum energy efficiency. That would be plausible only
>if there was anything special about now.
We likely are at (or near) optimum energy efficiency for CURRENT
technology and energy prices. And efficiencies are projected to increase
because of technology. But a reversal of that (moving BACKWARDS on the X
axis) will move the economy along a different line than the one it traced
when it was moving forward. Hysteresis.
>
>To forestall confusion, let me repeat: the above is what I understand
>_you_ to imply. I don't think you actually believe it just as it stands.
Yes, I do :-)
>
>I recognize that this two-dimensional graph (whatever the curve may
>actually look like) is only a cross-section through a multidimensional
>space.
Yes. I think that maybe hysteresis can be explained in terms of the
projection on a 2 dimensional plane of things that are happening in an N
dimensional space. Any math folks out there know about this?
>
>In any case, since I can't visualize 4-D or higher, I better stop here.
I can hardly keep 3 dimensions straight, and chew gum at the same time.
(THAT'S IT: the 4th dimension is TIME!!)
>Thanks for the synopsis of a very interesting thread.
>
>-- Tony Prentakis
:-)
Edward Flaherty
Anonymous wrote:
> Jim Blair wrote:
>
> > From 1900 to 2000:
> >
> > > US real GDP has grown about 18-fold.
> > > Total US energy consumption has grown about 9-fold.
> > > US population has grown about 3.6-fold.
> >
> > Thus percapita energy consumption increased by 2.5 times (more than
> > doubled).
>
> But you can't count the energy that CORPORATIONS
> use in per capita energy consumption!
Why not? "Corporation" is just a four syllable word for a
group of people producing something together. They are
people. They are using energy. Therefore, they count.
> Note that even in your own figures, real GDP has doubled,
> but energy use has only gone up half that amount!
> Therefore energy use per dollar GDP is decreasing!
So what? The argument is that in the long run improvements
in energy efficiency do not result in lower total energy usage
per capita. Saying that energy/GDP is lower today is just
another way of saying efficiency has improved, which is already
assumed in the argument.
--
Edward Flaherty
On-line since 1993
E-mail: flahe...@earthlink.net
Web site: http://members.home.net/flaherty15/index.htm
Anonymous
> So what? The argument is that in the long run improvements
> in energy efficiency do not result in lower total energy usage
> per capita. Saying that energy/GDP is lower today is just
> another way of saying efficiency has improved, which is already
> assumed in the argument.
You haven't read the whole post.
Let me re-iterate:
Point #1:
> Per capita energy use varies greatly depending
> on what industry you're in. For "heavy industries"
> where a small amount of people operate huge machines
> like monster sized dump trucks and cranes the per
> capita energy consumption is huge, but the efficiencies
> can also be huge because of economies of scale!
Point #2:
Thomas Palm
>
> Jim Blair wrote:
> > doubled).
>
> But you can't count the energy that CORPORATIONS
> use in per capita energy consumption!
That's what everyone else does. Get used to it.
Corporations produce things that people consume.
> Also, your assumption of per capita energy use assumes
> that it is the United States population which uses
> ALL the goods and services it produces. This is clearly
> NOT the case! Other countries import these goods and
> services. It's only fair that if someone in some foreign
> country purchases a computer from Dell, that the energy
> used to manufacture that computer be counted for the
> foreign country and NOT the United States, because in effect
> the product has been made to satisfy some person's demand
> in a foreign country!
How come you don't mention anything about imports to the USA?
Do you think you just sell stuff out of a good heart? Of
course not, you sell in order to be able to afford a lot
of imports.
Do you have any statistics indicating the net effect of
including both imports and exports?
> This is why the Kyoto treaty which places virtually all
> of the burden for controlling greenhouse gases on the United
> States is totally hypocritical.
The talk that USA is the victim of the Kyoto reaty, that is what
is hypocritical.
> Why should we bear all the cost of
> regulations, when they continue to buy the products that we produce
> on their behalf?
There has been discussions about boycotting American products.
Anonymous
> How come you don't mention anything about imports to the USA?
> Do you think you just sell stuff out of a good heart? Of
> course not, you sell in order to be able to afford a lot
> of imports.
Expenditures for final goods and services
are governed by the equation:
E = C + I + G - X - H
C = consumer expenditures
I = investment expenditures
G = government expenditures
X = exports
H = imports
The trade deficit in the LONG run
cannot exceed the overall GDP growth rate
or else GDP output will shrink.
Note that trade deficits can exist
year after year as long as GDP output
grows enough to accomodate the trade
deficit.
Since the long term trend of GDP output
has increased, imports are not really an issue.
>
> Do you have any statistics indicating the net effect of
> including both imports and exports?
>
> > This is why the Kyoto treaty which places virtually all
> > of the burden for controlling greenhouse gases on the United
> > States is totally hypocritical.
>
> The talk that USA is the victim of the Kyoto reaty, that is what
> is hypocritical.
>
> > Why should we bear all the cost of
> > regulations, when they continue to buy the products that we produce
> > on their behalf?
>
> There has been discussions about boycotting American products.
There are ALWAYS discussions about boycotting American products.
But yet there's never any follow-through. Why not?
Because all countries are INTERDEPENDENT, in spite
of rhetoric by politicians to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, the United States cannot unilaterally boycott a
foreign countries' products without detrimental effects
on the economy due to a suboptimal allocation of resources.
Edward Flaherty
Anonymous wrote:
> Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> > So what? The argument is that in the long run improvements
> > in energy efficiency do not result in lower total energy usage
> > per capita. Saying that energy/GDP is lower today is just
> > another way of saying efficiency has improved, which is already
> > assumed in the argument.
>
> You haven't read the whole post.
> Let me re-iterate:
>
> Point #1:
> > Per capita energy use varies greatly depending
> > on what industry you're in.
Agreed, but another non sequitur. The argument is not whether
an individual can conserve or reduce his own energy consumption
(or a single industry for that matter), but whether an entire economy
can do so. What is true for the part is not necessarily true for
the whole -- fallacy of composition. An individual can certainly
conserve and reduce his own energy use, but in the long run
conservation will not cause the aggregate economy to do so.
Someone else has addressed your 2nd point adequately.
Anonymous
> Agreed, but another non sequitur. The argument is not whether
> an individual can conserve or reduce his own energy consumption
> (or a single industry for that matter), but whether an entire economy
> can do so. What is true for the part is not necessarily true for
> the whole -- fallacy of composition. An individual can certainly
> conserve and reduce his own energy use, but in the long run
> conservation will not cause the aggregate economy to do so.
But conservation of energy arguments are always
going to be irrelevant.
It is the cost of extracting that energy and
the consequences of using that energy which
really matter.
For example, suppose hydrogen were used exclusively
for fuel and that all hydrogen was derived from seawater
and a way to split water directly from solar energy was
found (without the problems of corroding electrodes in
electrolysis).
My guess is that the cost of extracting energy as
well as the by-products of using energy would go
down considerably. And the fact that energy use
would rise dramatically due to its low cost and
non-polluting nature wouldn't really be of any
concern.
tonyp
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
> It has a hysteresis effect. The relationship between X and Y is not the
> same "going up" as it is "going down" the X axis. (Or so I claim :-)
>
> Hysteresis is fairly common in some fields, but (like
non-linearity)seems
> strange to those who have not encountered it before.
Ah, but what about those of us who _have_ encountered it before? Had you
spent seven years designing disk drives, you too would have an intense
love-hate relationship with hysteresis. As a result, you would employ the
word more carefully. In particular, you would only use it to describe
what happens to Y when you change X one way, and then _change_it_back_.
At first blush, it may seem that reversing Ed's argument amounts to
"changing efficiency back". But neither Ed nor I (anti-Ed, if you will)
were talking about _changing_ efficiency. Each of us was saying "what
_if_ efficiency were different than it is now?". To _change_ efficiency
(e.g. of air conditioners) in the real world, you can't just "assume a
can-opener". You have to build new air conditioners. Building them takes
energy, as reflected in the fact that they cost money. Clever Ed,
however, framed his argument on the basis that even if we magically
increased the efficiency of existing air-conditioners, energy consumption
would not decrease. In terms of the plot I described, that amounts to
picking a different point to call "now", not to following a path along the
multi-dimensional surface as the variable T (time) changes.
BTW, hysteresis in _time_ would be a neat trick: we can change GDP,
population, efficiency, and almost anything else down as well as up, but
we can't go forth and back in time :-)
-- Tony Prentakis
Jim Blair
Jim Blair wrote:
>> From 1900 to 2000:
>>
>> > US real GDP has grown about 18-fold.
>> > Total US energy consumption has grown about 9-fold.
>> > US population has grown about 3.6-fold.
>>
>> Thus percapita energy consumption increased by 2.5 times (more than
>> doubled).
Anonymous <anon...@anonymous.anonymous> wrote:
>
>But you can't count the energy that CORPORATIONS
>use in per capita energy consumption!
Hi,
Of course these are figures for the total economy. Divide total energy
consumed (however you find that figure) by the total population (from the
census). For both 1900 and 2000.
But why shouldn't energy expended by "corporations" be included? The
gasoline you burn in your car does not count in the total energy consumed
because it was refined by an oil company? Or exclude the energy it took
to make the car because the car was made by Ford or General Motors??
For both years, the majority of the energy was probably consumed BY
"corporations" making things that people buy and use.
>
>Per capita energy use varies greatly depending
>on what industry you're in. For "heavy industries"
>where a small amount of people operate huge machines
>like monster sized dump trucks and cranes the per
>capita energy consumption is huge, but the efficiencies
>can also be huge because of economies of scale!
That is why aggregate figures are compared. Any particular industry might
deviate from the average by a lot. But if you buy the products from a high
energy corporation, you are "consuming" their energy.
>
>Note that even in your own figures, real GDP has doubled,
>but energy use has only gone up half that amount!
>Therefore energy use per dollar GDP is decreasing!
That we already knew. The question was, did total energy consumed (and did
percapita evergy consumed) increase as the economy became "more
efficient"? The answer is YES.
>
>Also, your assumption of per capita energy use assumes
>that it is the United States population which uses
>ALL the goods and services it produces. This is clearly
>NOT the case!
Your point on trade is a valid one. If the US makes "energy intensive"
products (like airplanes) and sells them abroad in exchange for low energy
products, then how does that effect the "US percapita energy consumption"?
We would be "consuming" less energy, and our trading partners would be
"consuming" more energy, than the aggregate national figures would
indicate.
(My guess is that this trade factor would be a minor correction to the
totals, but that is just a guess).
But for example, someone claimed that Wisconsin generates less CO2 per
capita than Illinois. They tried to make the point that we are thus more
virtuous that those "flatlanders" to our south.
I pointed out that Wisconsin imports about 15% of its electric power from
(mostly coal burning) power plants, many of those in Illinois. While I
would love to see evidence that we are more virtuous, that "less CO2" data
isn't it.
>
>This is why the Kyoto treaty which places virtually all
>of the burden for controlling greenhouse gases on the United
>States is totally hypocritical.
Kyoto has its problems. Who has actually signed it? I love those Swedes
who are planning to shut down nuclear power plants and import their
electric power from coal burning plants in Poland (so I was told). That
way they can please the anti- nuke Greens and still say that THEY don't
make CO2 or acid rain. It is those damn Poles who are doing that!
Jim Blair
>But conservation of energy arguments are always
>going to be irrelevant.
Hi,
Not exactly "irrelevant" but not the major factor. This is in line with
Ed's claim.
>
>It is the cost of extracting that energy and
>the consequences of using that energy which
>really matter.
Yes. And including the "enviromental costs".
>For example, suppose hydrogen were used exclusively
>for fuel and that all hydrogen was derived from seawater
>and a way to split water directly from solar energy was
>found (without the problems of corroding electrodes in
>electrolysis).
>
>My guess is that the cost of extracting energy as
>well as the by-products of using energy would go
>down considerably. And the fact that energy use
>would rise dramatically due to its low cost and
>non-polluting nature wouldn't really be of any
>concern.
>
Ed's point again. Total use goes up as price goes dowm. Even as GDP per
calorie ("efficiency") increases.
Using current technology, solar energy costs about 20 times more than
nuclear. Part of the problem is the "down time" due to night (half the
time) and clouds. The enviromental costs include the large space taken my
solar collectors.
I hope to add a section to my web page on the proposed "Solar Sea" aka
"Ocean Thermal" system for using the temperature gradient of tropical
oceans to generate the power to split sea water for its hydrogen.
A hydrogen economy has real potential, once we get past the Hindenberg
Phobia.
But the irrational fear of a relatively safe technology can play a very
big role in decision making. It stopped "lighter than air" passenger
travel after the Hindenberg crash, and has stalled nuclear power in the
USA.
So we fly in jet planes and burn coal.
Jim Blair
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
>> It has a hysteresis effect. The relationship between X and Y is not the
>> same "going up" as it is "going down" the X axis. (Or so I claim :-)
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>..... you would only use (hystersis) to describe
>what happens to Y when you change X one way, and then _change_it_back_.
>
>At first blush, it may seem that reversing Ed's argument amounts to
>"changing efficiency back".
Hi,
Yes. Energy efficiency has been increasing. For it to now decrease, it
would mean "changing back" to some earlier value.
>...But neither Ed nor I (anti-Ed, if you will)
>were talking about _changing_ efficiency. Each of us was saying "what
>_if_ efficiency were different than it is now?".
??? To be "different than it is now" it would have to change from were it
is now. And in particular, it would have to change back to what it was at
some past time.
>....To _change_ efficiency
>(e.g. of air conditioners) in the real world, you can't just "assume a
>can-opener". You have to build new air conditioners.
Yes. And I assume this would mean building the new ones to be less energy
efficient than the old ones for some reason. I used cars as the example
where average fuel efficiency has actually dropped in recent years.
It (CAFE) has dropped. not because the car companies can't make the high
milage cars any more, but because car buyers don't consider fuel
efficiency as important as they once did. I say BECAUSE gas was cheaper.
>... Clever Ed,
>however, framed his argument on the basis that even if we magically
>increased the efficiency of existing air-conditioners, energy consumption
>would not decrease.
But he was speaking of the overall economy, not any particular sub-set of
it. More efficient air conditioners might result in people using the
money they saved to take a trip, for example.
>...In terms of the plot I described, that amounts to
>picking a different point to call "now", not to following a path along the
>multi-dimensional surface as the variable T (time) changes.
???? I am getting confused here. How can I change to another "now" without
moving along the time line? Every "now" is connected to every other "now"
by the time line. That is what time IS. Time is what keep everything that
happens from being simultaneous.
>
>BTW, hysteresis in _time_ would be a neat trick: we can change GDP,
>population, efficiency, and almost anything else down as well as up, but
>we can't go forth and back in time :-)
>
>-- Tony Prentakis
>
And my original claim: that every variable can't be independently changed,
especially not "efficiency". Efficiency is the consequence of other
variables. Technology when it is increasing, but probably of cheaper
energy when it decreases. So increasing energy efficiency would not be
expected to follow the same path as decreasing energy effeciency on the
effeciency vs consumption curve.
Thomas Palm
> Kyoto has its problems. Who has actually signed it?
Most countries have signed it, including USA. It's ratification
which is being delayed until it is clear that enough countries
actually intend to ratify it for it to become binding. For
some reason countries seems not to like ratifying treaties unless
they know (amost) everyone else will do it. Somewhat silly
in this case since the Kyoto treaty won't become binding in
any case unless states responsible for at least 50% of all
emissions ratify it.
> I love those Swedes
> who are planning to shut down nuclear power plants and import their
> electric power from coal burning plants in Poland (so I was told). That
> way they can please the anti- nuke Greens and still say that THEY don't
> make CO2 or acid rain. It is those damn Poles who are doing that!
Our energy policy is strange. There isn't even any public support
for closing the nuclear plants. Interestingly support for nuclear
power is larger the closer you live to a plant. The center for
the resistance is in northern Sweden where there are no nuclear
plants.
In our defence, we have very low carbon emissions and even when
having closed one out of twelve reactors we haven't really
increased our emissions. Having high taxes on gas and a carbon
tax we are forced to be much more energy efficient than most
countries.
WesTralia
much more energy efficient..."
So basically, your government controls and restricts your ability
to easily move about the country. That's insane!
--
Thomas Palm
> > In our defence, we have very low carbon emissions and even when
> > having closed one out of twelve reactors we haven't really
> > increased our emissions. Having high taxes on gas and a carbon
> > tax we are forced to be much more energy efficient than most
> > countries.
>
> "Having high taxes on gas and a carbon tax we are forced to be
> much more energy efficient..."
>
> So basically, your government controls and restricts your ability
> to easily move about the country. That's insane!
Our society has higher taxes overall. We also get a lot of
things for "free" which you have to pay for. Those taxes has
to come from somewhere. A tax on pollution seems more fair
than the alternatives. You can still own and drive a car,
you just have to be somewhat more aware of the costs. We
also have a lot better public transit than almost any
area in USA.
I don't expect you to approve of the way we run our society,
but I can't say that bothers me since you don't even live here.
We have made an effort to reduce global pollution, which is
more than USA has done. How you choose to do your part is up
to you, but I've hard to see how it can be done without some
government intervention.
Finally, of course your government restricts the way you can
move about too. Who owns most of the roads? Who adds
regulations for how fast you may drive, how much you may
have drunk, how much your car may emit etc?
WesTralia
Thomas Palm wrote:
>
> WesTralia wrote:
> > > In our defence, we have very low carbon emissions and even when
> > > having closed one out of twelve reactors we haven't really
> > > increased our emissions. Having high taxes on gas and a carbon
> > > tax we are forced to be much more energy efficient than most
> > > countries.
> >
> > "Having high taxes on gas and a carbon tax we are forced to be
> > much more energy efficient..."
> >
> > So basically, your government controls and restricts your ability
> > to easily move about the country. That's insane!
>
> Our society has higher taxes overall. We also get a lot of
> things for "free" which you have to pay for.
Your tax dollars are paying for those "freebies."
> Those taxes has
> to come from somewhere. A tax on pollution seems more fair
> than the alternatives. You can still own and drive a car,
> you just have to be somewhat more aware of the costs. We
> also have a lot better public transit than almost any
> area in USA.
>
Outside of cities, a mass transit system in the US would
be ridiculous due to the size of the US.
> I don't expect you to approve of the way we run our society,
> but I can't say that bothers me since you don't even live here.
> We have made an effort to reduce global pollution, which is
> more than USA has done.
Actually, your country is buying a significant portion of
its power from Poland which is coal based. Not good, and
a very sneaky way to deal with net CO2 output.
> How you choose to do your part is up
> to you, but I've hard to see how it can be done without some
> government intervention.
>
I don't want the US government crippling the US economy or
to restrict my mobility through enforced reduction of
CO2 which is a non pollutant. Allow technology to take care
of CO2 reduction, but don't start putting restrictions on
progress.
> Finally, of course your government restricts the way you can
> move about too. Who owns most of the roads? Who adds
> regulations for how fast you may drive, how much you may
> have drunk, how much your car may emit etc?
None of those items that you list restrict me in the least to
move about the USA by vehicle.
--
Thomas Palm
> > Our society has higher taxes overall. We also get a lot of
> > things for "free" which you have to pay for.
>
> Your tax dollars are paying for those "freebies."
Of course, thats why I put "free" in quotation marks.
I just wanted to point out that the money isn't gone
just because you pay it in taxes.
> Outside of cities, a mass transit system in the US would
> be ridiculous due to the size of the US.
You don't even have decent public transit in most cities.
I don't really see what the size of USA has to do with
anything either. You don't have to travel longer distances
just because you happen to live in a large country. If
EU suddenly started to call itself one country do you
expect everybody here would suddenly start traveling a
lot more because they now lived in a larger country?
> Actually, your country is buying a significant portion of
> its power from Poland which is coal based. Not good, and
> a very sneaky way to deal with net CO2 output.
Actually, we don't. The cable to Poland is quite new and
the amount of electricity going through it is fairly
limited. I'm not even sure of the balance. Some times we
export electricity to Poland instead. If we close down
more reactors the balance will start to shift to a lot
of import, though.
> I don't want the US government crippling the US economy or
> to restrict my mobility through enforced reduction of
> CO2 which is a non pollutant. Allow technology to take care
> of CO2 reduction, but don't start putting restrictions on
> progress.
How well has "technology" taken care of CO2 reductions
so far? Seen any reductions in US emissions lately?
The sad fact is that unless the government intervenes it
is cheaper to pollute because the costs for the pollution
will be shared by everyone while the cost for avoiding the
emission will only hit the polluter. How much sulphur do
you think your power plants would have emitted today if
there had been no demands on reducing that pollution?
And CO2 is a pollutant, however you choose to deny it.
> > Finally, of course your government restricts the way you can
> > move about too. Who owns most of the roads? Who adds
> > regulations for how fast you may drive, how much you may
> > have drunk, how much your car may emit etc?
>
> None of those items that you list restrict me in the least to
> move about the USA by vehicle.
It doesn't? So what do you do if there doesn't happen
to be a road to where you are going? Do you think the
demands put on cars by the US government doesn't make it
more expensive for you to drive?
tonyp
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
> ???? I am getting confused here. How can I change to another "now"
without
> moving along the time line? Every "now" is connected to every other
"now"
> by the time line. That is what time IS. Time is what keep everything
that
> happens from being simultaneous.
Well, we have to make up our minds: are we talking about things that
_happen_, or things that can we can _imagine_? Ed's theory was about a
parallel universe in which air-conditioners are more efficient. But it's
still 2001 there. His claim was that in _that_ universe, efficiency is
higher but consumption is nevertheless the same as in our "now". My claim
is that in a different parallel universe, where efficiency is lower (but
it's 2001 there, too), his argument would say that consumption is _still_
the same. Ed's "now", my "now", and our actual "now" are three distinct
points on the mathematical surface, but they are indeed simultaneous in
_time_.
If you have no patience for this kind of pedantry (and who could blame
you?) I am perfectly willing to discuss practical things. One practical
thing is that I could be driving a higher-mpg car next year and still be
paying the same number of dollars for gasoline. Not because I drive more
miles, but because gasoline is more expensive. In such a case, I have no
"savings" that I can "spend on other things". My "standard of living" has
not changed: my income is the same, I am spending the same fraction of it
for gasoline, and I am driving the same distances -- I'm just burning less
gas due to my car's higher efficiency. My contribution to GDP is exactly
the same, but my "energy consumption" is lower. If everybody in the
country had essentially the same experience, the nation's GDP would be the
same, its standard of living would be the same, but its aggregate gasoline
consumption would be lower.
Note that, in the above scenario, the people and corporations who get
their income by supplying gasoline are not earning any more money. They
are getting the _same_ money; they are just extracting fewer barrels of
petroleum from the ground for it. "The economy" is utterly unchanged.
So, in this scenario, what has changed is:
1) the thermodynamic efficiency of cars
2) the dollar price of gasoline
3) the real consumption of petroleum.
Everything else has stayed the same. In particular, the size, safety, and
comfort of automobiles has not changed. Getting higher MPG by sacrificing
those things is conservation, but I'm not talking about _that_, only about
efficiency.
So, there you have a scenario wherein higher efficiency goes hand-in-hand
with lower consumption. I am postulating nothing about which of the 3
items is cause and which effect. In particular, I'm not saying that
higher gas prices _caused_ higher efficiency, because I'm an engineer. In
my vocabulary, higher efficiency is "caused" by technological
improvements. All I am saying is that people don't necessarily save
_money_ as a result of increased "efficiency", something which Ed's
argument takes for granted.
Of course, if petroleum were a non-depletable resource (like, say,
sunlight) then gas prices could stay flat, and we could consume more and
more oil as our standard of living rose due to higher efficiency, forever.
That would be delightful, but there I go straying from practicality
again.
-- Tony Prentakis
Paul F. Dietz
> But the irrational fear of a relatively safe technology can play a very
> big role in decision making. It stopped "lighter than air" passenger
> travel after the Hindenberg crash, and has stalled nuclear power in the
> USA.
Rigid airships are unsafe even with helium. The showstopper
is their inability to tolerate bad weather.
Paul
Jim Blair
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
>> ???? I am getting confused here. How can I change to another "now"
>without
>> moving along the time line? Every "now" is connected to every other
>"now"
>> by the time line. That is what time IS. Time is what keep everything
>that
>> happens from being simultaneous.
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Well, we have to make up our minds: are we talking about things that
>_happen_, or things that can we can _imagine_? Ed's theory was about a
>parallel universe in which air-conditioners are more efficient. But it's
>still 2001 there. His claim was that in _that_ universe, efficiency is
>higher but consumption is nevertheless the same as in our "now".
Hi,
I was basing my comments on changes that might happen in this universe.
In the past, energy efficiencies have increased (with a few exceptions)
due to technology, and energy consumption has also increased (except for a
few short intervals).
The issue was, what would energy consumption do if energy efficiency were
to reverse its increase, and to decline? My reply was is that the cause
of a future decline in energy efficiency would not be just a reversal to
the past: if efficiency were to revert to the level of 1985 (say), it
would not be because 1985 had returned. Going "back" on the efficiency vs
consumption diagram would not follow the same path that it did when moving
"forward". The diagram would show hysteresis.
My "model" was the reduction in CAFE in recent years. It was not because
we can no longer make high milage cars, but because people lost interest
in buying them. Becaue of cheaper gasoline mostly.
Maybe if I used AC as my "model" I would get a different prediction. AC
energy efficiency drops because the gains had been due to the use of
Freons as the coolent. Now we ban Freon because we discover its effect on
the ozone layer, and so the energy effeciency reverts back to its 1980
level because the technology reverts back to what it was in 1980.
Then maybe your reversal of Ed's logic would apply: higher AC costs mean
people spend less on those "other things" and then maybe total energy
consumption would fall.
>
>If you have no patience for this kind of pedantry (and who could blame
>you?) I am perfectly willing to discuss practical things.
It was fun, but I have had enough of it. Let's stick to this Universe.
....
>
>So, there you have a scenario wherein higher efficiency goes hand-in-hand
>with lower consumption.
But in THIS Universe, or at least in the USA for the last 100 years,
higher energy efficiency has happened along with HIGHER per capita energy
consumption (as Grinch has provided the data to show).
And Ed had provided an explanation for why.
>...I am postulating nothing about which of the 3
>items is cause and which effect.
I say it is hard to say what is cause and what is effect . They are
entangled.
>.... In
>my vocabulary, higher efficiency is "caused" by technological
>improvements.
I assume the same.
>...All I am saying is that people don't necessarily save
>_money_ as a result of increased "efficiency", something which Ed's
>argument takes for granted.
But as compared to what? And on what time frame?
>
>Of course, if petroleum were a non-depletable resource (like, say,
>sunlight) .....
We will "run out" of sunshine too, some day. Just as we will "run out" of
oil or coal or uranium or hydrogen for fusion. The differences are in the
time scale.
>.... but there I go straying from practicality
>again.
>
>-- Tony Prentakis
>
Me too ;-)
PS off again for a couple of weeks.
Jim Blair
Jim Blair wrote:
>> But the irrational fear of a relatively safe technology can play a very
>> big role in decision making. It stopped "lighter than air" passenger
>> travel after the Hindenberg crash, and has stalled nuclear power in the
>> USA.
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>Rigid airships are unsafe even with helium. The showstopper
>is their inability to tolerate bad weather.
>
> Paul
Hi,
How can the safety track record of lighter than air passenger ships be
compared to heavier than air planes, when there aren't any of them?
The Hindenberg carried passengers all over the world for years before it
exploded.
PS: I'll be off line for a couple of weeks,
Jim Blair
>> Outside of cities, a mass transit system in the US would
>> be ridiculous due to the size of the US.
>
>You don't even have decent public transit in most cities.
Hi,
Just a few random comments from the guy who started this branch of
the thread.
Some US cities have OK (not GOOD, but OK) mass transit. Boston, Chicago or
Atlanta for example. DC is GOOD and NYC was also pretty good (but old
and noisy) when I was there last.
But let's not discuss LA or Houston :-(
Travel between cities is limited to bus and a few trains, if you
don't count airplanes. There are some plans for fast train service
between some mid-west cities: Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis-Detroit-
Minneapolis network. Maybe it will happen soon. And maybe not.
Down town to down town fast trains (100 mph range) would get people
to where they want to go faster than airplanes, which typically are
located 10 to 50 miles from the city center.
>I don't really see what the size of USA has to do with
>anything either. You don't have to travel longer distances
>just because you happen to live in a large country.
Americans probably do travel longer distances because of the lack of
borders and the larger geographic range of our "culture" (such as
it is). My mother recently moved from Missouri to California and
so I travel much farther when I visit her. How many Swedes move to
Italy or Greece when they retire? But people from Wisconsin, Michigan
or Maine frequently retire in Florida, California or Arizona. And the kids
come to visit them.
>....If
>EU suddenly started to call itself one country do you
>expect everybody here would suddenly start traveling a
>lot more because they now lived in a larger country?
If they all spoke the same language (English?!) and saw themselves
as "Europeans", maybe they would. Check back with me on this in 2050 :-)
>
>> Actually, your country is buying a significant portion of
>> its power from Poland which is coal based. Not good, and
>> a very sneaky way to deal with net CO2 output.
>
>Actually, we don't. The cable to Poland is quite new and
>the amount of electricity going through it is fairly
>limited. I'm not even sure of the balance. Some times we
>export electricity to Poland instead. If we close down
>more reactors the balance will start to shift to a lot
>of import, though.
And this was my point: is it fair to knock Bush for not going along
with Kyoto, while planning to import electric power made from coal?
I mean that Japanese guy can complain about Bush's energy plan, and
so can the French. But can the Germans and Swedes?
>
>> I don't want the US government crippling the US economy or
>> to restrict my mobility through enforced reduction of
>> CO2 which is a non pollutant.
CO2 IS a "pollutant", and its emissions should be reduced. But that
means nuclear power. But a lot of people are not willing to recognize that
fact. We still hear nonsense about "renewable" replacements for nuclear
and coal.
Yea, like what? Solar? It's not here yet (after decades of research).
Wind? Sure for a few places. But see
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wind.txt
Hydro was the big "renewable energy" until they actually built some dams
and saw the environmental consequences. Now they were talking about
REMOVING the hydrodams on the Columbia River to save the salmon. Until
the California blackouts stopped that talk!
Geothermal? Sure, in Yellowstone National park ;-)
>>Allow technology to take care
>> of CO2 reduction, but don't start putting restrictions on
>> progress.
That technology exists today, and going nuclear IS progress.
>> > Finally, of course your government restricts the way you can
>> > move about too. Who owns most of the roads? Who adds
>> > regulations for how fast you may drive, how much you may
>> > have drunk, how much your car may emit etc?
The main "restriction" on getting around in most US cities today is the
traffic congestion ON the roads.
>>
>> None of those items that you list restrict me in the least to
>> move about the USA by vehicle.
But how about trying to drive south of LA into Orange County at 5 pm
on a weekday?
>It doesn't? So what do you do if there doesn't happen
>to be a road to where you are going?
The road IS there: 6 or 8 lanes in each direction. And sure you can
travel. And average 10 mph :-(
>.....Do you think the
>demands put on cars by the US government doesn't make it
>more expensive for you to drive?
They raise the DOLLAR price. But congestion raises the price we pay in
TIME.
PS: I'll be off line for a couple of weeks.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
JB> If they all spoke the same language (English?!) and saw themselves
JB> as "Europeans", maybe they would. Check back with me on this in 2050 :-)
No need, it's happening already to a great extent. I split my time between
Holland (work) and Ireland (family), not that long ago work was in Germany. One thing
I've noticed is that the early monday flights and the late friday flights all over
Europe (the route from Munich to Dublin wasn't easy) are mostly filled with weekly
and multi-week commuters.
With regard to language, this is still something of an issue but English is
pretty close to the universal second language in any multinational company. Some of
the Bavarians (don't call them German :)) I worked with complained that they were
starting to forget their German.
--
Directable Mirrors - A Better Way To Focus The Sun
Thomas Palm
>
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> >You don't even have decent public transit in most cities.
> Just a few random comments from the guy who started this branch of
> the thread.
>
> Some US cities have OK (not GOOD, but OK) mass transit. Boston, Chicago or
> Atlanta for example. DC is GOOD and NYC was also pretty good (but old
> and noisy) when I was there last.
San Fransisco is also OK. Usually the "old" cities that were
big before the car was invented are much better. With the
arrival of the car city planning deteriorated.
> But let's not discuss LA or Houston :-(
No, let's bomb them instead. That would take care of pollution.
The irony of Hollywood being the scene of a big disaster
after making all those disaster movies makes it a tempting
target.
> Travel between cities is limited to bus and a few trains, if you
> don't count airplanes. There are some plans for fast train service
> between some mid-west cities: Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis-Detroit-
> Minneapolis network. Maybe it will happen soon. And maybe not.
I have traveled through part of USA by bus or train. It
is possible but not all that easy in many places and you
quickly realize that "fine" people don't travel that way
unlike in Europe.
> Americans probably do travel longer distances because of the lack of
> borders and the larger geographic range of our "culture" (such as
> it is). My mother recently moved from Missouri to California and
> so I travel much farther when I visit her. How many Swedes move to
> Italy or Greece when they retire?
Not too many. We tend to move to Spain instead :-)
> >Actually, we don't. The cable to Poland is quite new and
> >the amount of electricity going through it is fairly
> >limited. I'm not even sure of the balance. Some times we
> >export electricity to Poland instead. If we close down
> >more reactors the balance will start to shift to a lot
> >of import, though.
>
> And this was my point: is it fair to knock Bush for not going along
> with Kyoto, while planning to import electric power made from coal?
> I mean that Japanese guy can complain about Bush's energy plan, and
> so can the French. But can the Germans and Swedes?
Yes Sweden can. First from the common sense argument that
we have extremely low CO2 emissions for an industrialized
country so even if we did fail to reach the goal set up we'd
still be way ahead of almost everyone. Secondly I don't think
that import will be particullary big. It depends somewhat on
the outcome of the next election, though. If political
compromises makes it necessary to close more reactors then we
will have to import. Whether we meet our target for Kyoto or not
has more to do with whether 2010 is a rainy year or not since
we have plenty of hydro power that fluctuates between years.
As for Germany they are way ahead of the Kyoto targets
last time I checked. Admittedly this is to a large extent
due to the reunification but still they do what they
have promised to do. Now if they could only stop subsidizing
their coal mines...
> CO2 IS a "pollutant", and its emissions should be reduced. But that
> means nuclear power. But a lot of people are not willing to recognize that
> fact. We still hear nonsense about "renewable" replacements for nuclear
> and coal.
>
> Yea, like what? Solar? It's not here yet (after decades of research).
Reducing CO2 means a lot of things. US economy is extremely
energy inefficient so there is lots of room to save energy.
Renewable can give you some energy as can unconventional
energy sources (sinks?). In Stockholm we have started with
remote cooling, i.e. collecting cool sea water and distributing
it over the city to replace air conditioning. This ought
to work in California as well.
Still you are probably right that nuclear is necessary.
It not perfect but clearly better than coal and oil. I'm
certainly glad how we slashed our emissions with the Swedish
nuclear program.
> Hydro was the big "renewable energy" until they actually built some dams
> and saw the environmental consequences. Now they were talking about
> REMOVING the hydrodams on the Columbia River to save the salmon. Until
> the California blackouts stopped that talk!
We have a lot of hydro and have learned how to let the salmon
survive it, although that doesn't help when people catch far
too much salmon. Still hydro does destroy a lot of nature
when the dams are built and in some areas you get as much
greenhouse emissions from decaying vegetation at the bottom
as you would have gotten from using coal so it is not a
good solution.
> Geothermal? Sure, in Yellowstone National park ;-)
If you can drill for oil in Alaska, why not? Bush is capable
of anything.
We've started looking at an old meteorite crater near Stockolm
as a possible site for deep geothermal heat. You don't have to
have hot springs at the surface to consider geothermal.
> The main "restriction" on getting around in most US cities today is the
> traffic congestion ON the roads.
And that problem would be reduced if prices were increased.
You pay more but get where you want faster. Use the extra
income to trains/busses so the ones who can't or don't
want to pay the higher price still can move around.
> >It doesn't? So what do you do if there doesn't happen
> >to be a road to where you are going?
>
> The road IS there: 6 or 8 lanes in each direction. And sure you can
> travel. And average 10 mph :-(
I once saw someone trying to make an estimate of the effective
speed of a car, i.e., take the distance traveled and divide not
only with the time you drive but the time you have to work to
afford to buy and operate the car and the time spent caring
for it. It turned out you culd just as well walk, the speed would
be the same.
Dale C. Eddy
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
The Hindenburg phobia refers more to the perceived danger of hydrogen, not
the safety of rigid airships. Most people believe that hydrogen is extremely
dangerous but think nothing of using propane or natural gas. If the
Hindenburg had been full of natural gas rather than hydrogen, the town of
Lakehurst, New Jersey would have been wiped off the map when dirigible burst
in to flame.
-DCE
Grinch
<shoc...@tarnover.mv.com> wrote:
>"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
>
>> Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>> > But the irrational fear of a relatively safe technology can play a very
>> > big role in decision making. It stopped "lighter than air" passenger
>> > travel after the Hindenberg crash, and has stalled nuclear power in the
>> > USA.
>>
>> Rigid airships are unsafe even with helium. The showstopper
>> is their inability to tolerate bad weather.
>>
I'm not an expert on this, but the Graf Zeppelin traveled a million
miles in nine years including trips around-the-world and to the North
Pole. It must have encountered its share of bad weather, and its
experience didn't lead the people of the day to conclude air ships
were commercially impractical.
> The Hindenburg phobia refers more to the perceived danger of hydrogen, not
>the safety of rigid airships.
Yes, and both the original investigation and today's analysis
indicates the Hindenberg conflagration resulted *not* from its
hydrogen burning, but from the airship being weatherproofed with a
coating of powdered aluminum that was extremely flammable (similar to
what is used today in solid rocket fuel) and which was ignited by a
static charge.
There was a story in the NY Times about this a little while back,
which IIRC reported that some US Navy airships filled with helium
but similarly painted with the powdered aluminum compound caught fire
and burned in just the same way.
I don't have the Times story but a quick Google search found ...
http://www.clean-air.org/hindenberg.htm
This reports, plausibly to me, that hydrogen is so much lighter than
air that if it had ignited it would have immediately escaped upward
from the breech in the balloon and the ship would have just fallen
"thud" on the ground.
The fire that we see in the newsreel and which killed so many people
resulted from the powdered aluminum burning and setting fire to
everything else.
"CONCLUSIONS:
"Careful investigation of the Hindenburg disaster verified the opinion
of the engineers on the Hindenburg and proved that it was the
flammable aluminum powder filled paint varnish that coated the
infamous airship, not the hydrogen that started the fateful fire.
"The Hindenburg repeated the famous experiment of Ben Franklin
regarding collection of electric charge on an object in the sky. Ben
Franklin flew a kite in a storm to learn about lightening. The captain
of the Hindenburg provided the 800' long, 236 ton, aluminum-powder
varnish covered airship as a much larger electric charge collector.
"As the Hindenburg was grounded by dropping landing lines, the
experiment was complete and electrical discharge in the Hindenburg's
skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if
it had been filled with helium or simply held in the air by some other
force.
"As eyewitnesses noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably *after*
the Hindenburg’s surface skin started to burn and was over in less
than one minute."
ro...@telus.net
<shoc...@tarnover.mv.com> wrote:
>If the
>Hindenburg had been full of natural gas rather than hydrogen, the town of
>Lakehurst, New Jersey would have been wiped off the map when dirigible burst
>in to flame.
That is certainly false. While the energy content of natural gas is
considerably greater than that of hydrogen, when not mixed with an
oxidizer it is no more explosive than hydrogen. It would burn hotter,
perhaps hot enough to ignite a nearby wooden building or two. But
that's all.
-- Roy L
con...@email.rahul.net
natural reserve of helium, and was regulating who could get it-which
didn't include the Germans.
Its an interesting study in bureaucracy.
The helium reserve was created in 1925 to protect the US Army's blimp
fleet as a strategic agenda.
It is still on the books to this very day, (just in case someone wants
to build a blimp, or something, as a strategic threat to the US.)
John
--
John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 con...@email.rahul.net
631 Lamont Ct. Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.johncon.com/
Campbell, CA 95008 Cel. 408.772.7733
P.G. Felton
The fire didn't kill 'so many people' most deaths were due to falls from height
many more
survivors than would be expected from a crash of an equivalently sized jet
today!
Phil.
David Lloyd-Jones
<con...@email.rahul.net> wrote
> The helium reserve was created in 1925 to protect the US Army's blimp
> fleet as a strategic agenda.
>
> It is still on the books to this very day, (just in case someone wants
> to build a blimp, or something, as a strategic threat to the US.)
John,
The three greatest shucks in American government were always the alpaca
subsidy, the Boston Navy Yard (to make sure the US Navy had a resevoir of
men skilled in handling hemp rope -- in, uh, Ted Kennedy's district, back
when he was in the House), and the subsidy to travelling bee keepers. This
last is those guys with boxes of bees in the back of their trucks,
travelling around in the midwest where almost everything that grows is in
fact either fertilised by the wind or is sexless, i.e. self-fertilizing.
All three were eliminated a few years ago, in Clinton's first term while the
House was still Democratic, I believe.
Number Four on every sane person's list was always the Helium Reserve.
Helium percolates up from the depths of the Earth, and it will continue to
do so as long as the core is fissioning away, the perk-perk-perk of the
uranium decay moving the continents around, making the volcanoes and
Japanese steam baths work, and just being natural. You need helium, you just
dig a hole. You'll probably have to separate out the methane, but that's
just gravy.
I had thought the damn thing had been abolished back in late LBJ or early
Nixon time. Wha' hoppen?
Best,
-dlj.
Graham Cowan
Helium has unique strategic properties, being the only
six-dimensional gas. See
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/helium.html .
-- Graham Cowan
"Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
David Lloyd-Jones
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote >
> Helium has unique strategic properties, being the only
> six-dimensional gas.
Graham,
Water has unique strategic properties, having an extraordinarily high
specific heat.
So? Do you want to crank up a Stategic Water Reserve?
-dlj.
Jim Blair
>> >> Jim Blair wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > But the irrational fear of a relatively safe technology can play a very
>> >> > big role in decision making. It stopped "lighter than air" passenger
>> >> > travel after the Hindenberg crash, and has stalled nuclear power in the
>> >> > USA.
>> >>
>> >> Rigid airships are unsafe even with helium. The showstopper
>> >> is their inability to tolerate bad weather.
>> >>
>>
>> I'm not an expert on this, but the Graf Zeppelin traveled a million
>> miles in nine years including trips around-the-world and to the North
>> Pole. It must have encountered its share of bad weather, and its
>> experience didn't lead the people of the day to conclude air ships
>> were commercially impractical.
>>
>> > The Hindenburg phobia refers more to the perceived danger of hydrogen, not
>> >the safety of rigid airships.
>>
>> The fire that we see in the newsreel and which killed so many people
>> resulted from the powdered aluminum burning and setting fire to
>> everything else.
"P.G. Felton" <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>The fire didn't kill 'so many people' most deaths were due to falls from height
>many more
>survivors than would be expected from a crash of an equivalently sized jet
>today!
>
>Phil.
Hi,
I'm back from a 2 week trip and noticed that the thread I started is still
going on ;-)
My point: in spite of millions of miles of safe travel, and hundreds of
millions of passenger miles, one crash that killed about 30 people (about
1/3 of those on the craft) created the fear that such craft were not
safe. So heavier-than-air was the path taken. And who ever heard of one
of those crashing and killing anyone?
If energy efficiency ever becomes an important issue, I predict we will
see the return of lighter-than-air transport, even maybe using hydrogen.
Modern satellite based weather forecasting should greatly reduce the
hazards of wind velocity to such craft.
I see this situation as similar to the TMI and even Chernobyl accidents.
The death of a few people (0.3 for TMI!!) has resulted in building
hundreds of coal fired power plants instead of nuclear ones, and now the
US has somewhere around 30,000 deaths per year as a result--and probably
more now that the heart attack risk has been identified. Plus the mercury
in the lakes, etc.