|
U-Know! Forum » Mr Grufty Jim Sir !! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 17:03
|
||
|
actually, if you link to "wind maps" from the front page of the Bergey site, and then scroll down to the 'Global' section, that map i mentioned at some point is there: US-DOE World Wind Map (Large Version: 275 KB)
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 17:38
|
||
|
Any of you guys know the accuracy of the model that forecasts: Were a desert annexed and filled with rotating banks of photovoltaic cells the energy captured would be sufficient to split hydrogen and transport it via pipelines etc to fuel cells, generating enough energy to fuel our needs? Also, what of the Z Machine? All looks spooky to me?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 18:10
|
||
|
> Were a desert annexed and filled with rotating > banks of photovoltaic cells the energy captured > would be sufficient to split hydrogen and transport > it via pipelines etc to fuel cells, generating enough > energy to fuel our needs? > can't say as i'm up to date on the "Z Machine" morfe; but i tend to mistrust anything with that kind of name... there are hundreds (i kid you not) of crazy ideas for "cheap, abundant energy" out there. as a member of a number of energy-related mailing lists, i get to read about lots of them. i think nuclear fusion is the best of those, but even that's only "theoretically possible" in a controlled environment. as for hydrogen, there are serious drawbacks with that too. hydrogen isn't considered an "energy source" by energy researchers; rather it is an energy carrier (the difference is important). our current primary method for producing hydrogen is through the use of fossil fuels (it's extracted from natural gas). this is obviously a non-starter if we're looking for "renewable" energy. however, it can indeed be manufactured from water using electricity. the main way people have considered doing this is PV cells on giant rafts (rather than in the desert... as then you'd have to move the electricity to a water source, with a subsequent loss of power... remember energy is lost at every stage of the process; generation, distribution, conversion and usage). unfortunately, a little known fact about PV cells is that the most efficient ones we currently possess require twice as much energy in their manufacture (from fossil fuels) than they produce over their average lifespan. so even if we doubled the efficiency of PV cells (possible, but hardly a certainty) we'd need to use all of the power they generate just to build the next lot. there's also the materials used to produce PV cells... currently mostly plastic (i.e. oil) and aluminium (i.e massive electricity expenditure), plus there's the no small task of hydrogen storage and distribution - fuel cells are high tech; they require precision manufacturing and the use of a lot of refined metals (metal refining is - as mentioned elsewhere - very energy intensive). and we've yet to get onto the rather important issue of how much of the surface area of the planet we'd need to devote to PV cells in order to transition to a hydrogen economy... don't have the exact figures here; but i recall reading (and don't quote this; it's a vague memory and needs confirmation) that the USA would need to cover the entire planet in PV cells twice over to meet it's current energy usage. now, the USA is simply not going to be able to maintain that sort of energy consumption; but it indicates the scale of the problem.
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 21:37
|
||
|
Thanks for your comprehensive reply Grufty Jim, is food for thought, especially thanks for bringing up the forecast energy deficit, this needs publicising across the board, so to speak, would be grateful if you have a few links regarding this matter? Morfe oh yeah, these are the guys I've had my eyes on, gimlet-like. Check it out, the z-machine is there somewhere... (there were widespread broadsheet articles earlier this year) imagine a US defence co. being responsible for the world's energy supply...aghy http://www.sandia.gov/Solution.htm
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 22:27
|
||
|
Thanks for the link, a bit dense but quite interesting - 'we live in a civilisation that's as dependent on oil as the Easter Islanders were on wood. check out what happened to them after they cut down the last tree' this is evident, I totally agree. But corporate industry lives on short-term profit, when did they ever think about the future? Let's consider this and other of the aspects of the thread: The key point of the research is HOW TO CONTINUE consuming like planks in the horribly wasteful amounts as we are today. I am still sceptical regarding the vast differences in the 'sustainability' department and the research carried out. I mean, let's take food. There's plenty of it now to feed the whole world but vast amounts are destroyed or rot every day in the countries we live in and YET we are told we need to produce more! Now, if oil is going to be so scarce, that means, it will equally be more intensely controlled in the hands of a few, and that explains it when you say 'they are well aware of that, oil will just become more profitable'. Another short-term strategy to get hold profit in a difficult situation while the rest of the world will be suffering from energy shortages. The failure of alternative technology is that we still understand it in the same wasteful way as conventional one. Vast projects like solar cells filling a desert or wind farms destroying a landscape are nothing but a replacement. Instead, as mentioned here, I believe in self-sustainable projects where each house supports itself. This has NEVER been in the interests of the energy industry as it means its disappearance as providers. But the only solution would be to sustain oneself. I will not shed a tear for all those lights that glow all day during Christmas (much as I respect people's feelings) on the shopping precincts of the developed world. And if your house runs out of electricity, then don't leave the lights on when you leave. Isn't a completely green house a great idea? Industry is just not interested when the last years of extreme profit from oil are upon us. Otherwise, common sense for humanity would be 'let's start using the energy we have now in order to build cells for green houses!' If this catastrophe entails a whole change in the attitude and way of life for us all then all the better. Surely lots of organic material would burn for personal heating but wouldn't that tiny amount of pollution be compensated by the lack of use of oil on cars and industry? Or does that mean that coal would become normal again? And isn't coal scarce as well? In any case, if the root problem is not tackled (that of why the US consumes or wastes twice as much energy as Europe - per head - and we don't live particularly worse than in the US) then we might as well just resign to more nuclear power stations saying 'there is a real energy crisis', 'we need more energy'. There just isn't. It's just the dead end we seem to find ourselves in. Still, nuclear power stations cost a hell of a lot of money and take a hell of a long time to build, so if this crisis is coming, then I agree with you it will be a big disaster we have not got ready for, but it will also inevitably mean a real revolution that we will unwillingly have to go through.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 22:58
|
||
|
hiya morfe, some sources for thee... there's an excellent overview (albeit almost 7 years old now) of the hydrogen issue at: http://www.cnie.org/nle/eng-4.html (a pretty dispassionate and unbiased report on the issue made to the US Congress) although they certainly don't dismiss the "solar hydrogen" scenario, i'm of the opinion that the most important point in the report is: "Although it is the universe's most abundant element, hydrogen is present in the atmosphere only in concentrations of less than one part per million. Most of the Earth's hydrogen is bound up in chemical compounds. Hydrogen for large-scale use must therefore be extracted from a source such as water, coal, natural gas, or plant matter. It cannot simply be produced from a mine or a well. Since considerable energy is consumed in the extraction process, hydrogen should properly be considered an energy carrier rather than an energy source; the energy released when it is finally used is just the energy that was invested in its original manufacture (minus any losses). Recognizing this fact is of critical importance..." so when's all said and done, the really vital point is that in a world without fossil fuels, when we have to replace all of our current hydrocarbon usage with "something else", where is the large _additional_ chunk of power going to come from just to produce all the hydrogen? regarding solar (PV) cells, check out some of the articles on http://www.dieoff.org/ - there are some that claim there's a future for PV technology, but most that don't. however, some hurdles that need overcoming: in Howard Odum's "Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making" he (allegedly... it costs $140 so i'm relying on someone's citation here!) calculates that in 1993 the total USA fuel use was 4.78 x 10e24 sej. However, total net solar radiation absorption for Alaska and the lower 48 States was 4.48 x 10e22 sej. This means that the USA is presently using fossil fuels more than 100 times greater than the total absorption of solar radiation across the entire USA! (so not 2 earths as i said previously, but 100 USAs). of course, you cover that much of the planet with PV and you gotta wonder where we're going to grow all our food, and stuff like that... the calculations which demonstrate that PV uses twice as much energy to build, situate and maintain than you get out of the stuff are here: http://dieoff.com/pv.htm note: i do not understand these calculations. however, when they were submitted to the energyresources mailing list, all but a few "solar rollers" (as they are known by some... i'm a "windie"; not sure which is worse ;-) who understood the numbers agreed that they demonstrated the deficit. Jay Hanson's summary of the matter is this... "H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that went into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuel are muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out." that's pretty bleak, and there are plenty of people clued up to the looming fossil fuel crunch who don't think it's as bad as all that. i simply know that it's a little silly to believe that we can replace the accumulated millions of years of stored sunlight that was our fossil fuel resources with the relative drip-feed that trickles down from above. i think it's a tragedy as it happens. the more i've learnt about oil, the more i've realised what a unique and precious resource it is. if we'd truly been an intelligent race, it could have taken us to the stars...
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 10, 2001, 23:12
|
||
|
hey AQ, i'm completely with you when you state that the problem is the fact that we use far more energy than we need. but it's not a simple case of just stopping. 2% of the US population produces the entire nation's food. that means that 98% are engaged in something else. the only way this is possible is through the vast mechanisation that the hydrocarbon economy has brought us. put an end to that and what happens? the other 98% learn homesteading overnight? is there enough fertile land for them to all live close enough to food sources not to require large scale distribution? can that sort of complete restructuring of civilisation actually occur? i mean, i'm planning on getting out of the city before too long and going as low-impact and self-sufficient as i can manage. but the bookies would probably put long odds on my chances of success... there are a hundred pitfalls for the wary, let alone the thousands that await the unwary... and i'm planning on doing it when i can still use the hydrocarbon infrastructure as a set of "stabilisers". my take on the future essentially is that we will see another couple of boom and bust cycles over the next 5 or 6 years or so, then the realisation that oil prices are going up and will never come down again will hit the markets hard. the sort of economic depression that the USA suffered in the 20s/30s will then kick in, but from which there will be no short/medium term recovery. the planet will probably shed much of its population through warfare over the dwindling resources. just call me mr. apocalypse, eh? :-)
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Dec 11, 2001, 00:11
|
||
|
Mr Apocalypse, It's a double-edged sword, the severing of this possible oil-dependency umbilical chord, innit? as you say, the human race is just not clever enough, though, I think it is, it's just stupid enough to let itself rely on a bunch of bastards, beginning with the oil moguls+politicians+crooks incestuous breed. Better to be self-reliant. The smaller the community, the better. No corruption. No appearing to your fellow citizens on the telly grinning thinking 'fuck you' when you're saying 'god bless us'. No distant pressing of a button that directs a missile towards another group of distant human beings you've never met. Be local in a uniquely global and human way. On the one hand, here's a huge new horizon for the planet, where people'd have the chance to change their stupid wastefucker way of life for something a bit more wholly and healthy. A new framework created for mankind, aided by current production. On the other hand, only at the very last moment would people act, and then, only the rich, the greedy and the ones-to-blame-in-the-first-place would have the remaining resources to survive damning the rest to die an uncomfortable death. Needless to say, I know which of these would, in the case of a big energy crisis, be more likely. Please let us know how you fare in the future. I fear there's not a few of us here planning to go 'organic' and 'self-sustainable' one day. Perhaps we will have to plunge into the adventure anyway all of a sudden, want it or not. Though I suppose by the time that happens there would just be no need for this PC, or else, energy available. Are there any wind-up cd players or computers, as there are radio sets? To go back to the 'oil' issue - will they completely obliterate Alaska in the ten or so years before the first signs of a crisis? After all, whatever oil remains there means profit for at least another decade. Sad. Hopefully a few more solar cells will be manufactured in the meantime. Or else we can always live off the 10% produced by wind power right now in many countries (excepting the UK, that is) - I think using 10% of the energy we use now wouldn't be a big problem, as long as it's rationally used. I am sure about 90% of what we use is totally unnecessary. Take how much energy, oil, money and resources are being squandered right now to find one man *supposedly* hiding in a cave far away, for example. As long as we continue to rely on wankers who wrap themselves in a flag for their own self interest or personal pride then we will continue to be damned. I guess I have earned the title of Mr Idealist. Then again, in the case of a 0% energy availability, I'd have no problem living like a troglodyte, after all, some of the best records are unique freak-outs created by 'stone age' technology! (e.g.Hapshash and the Coloured Coat)
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Dec 11, 2001, 04:22
|
||
|
eh up, started replying to your message - realised i'd go over the 4096 character limit, so you've got a painfully long email awaiting you AQ. sorry. but look at the time! is it any wonder i followed a few tangents? g.jim.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Dec 11, 2001, 11:31
|
||
|
Ha ha! The dreadful 4096 number!! Happens to me all the time with postings! I have to edit them, make them into double posts, send them to someone else or simply save them in a file called HH Remains. And I had promised to write only 4 or 5 words per message like most common sensical people do! With folks like you I'm doomed! If you have to send it somewhere, send it to the email address here, my home account is screwed up. Much looking forward to it. Cheers, Master Grufty.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
