[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 9 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.
lack of energy, too mu

The problem is that with current technology and current standard of living, we need a lot of oil. Oil is almost up and there is a lack of good alternatives.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Nov 9 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 9 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.
lack of energy, too mu

The problem is that with current technology and current standard of living, we need a lot of oil. Oil is almost up and there is a lack of good alternatives.

Is not the solution the same as always?

Price acts as ration ticket while we wait for innovation and creative destruction?
See past 100 years?

Otherwise the sky falls and we all die, yes?

[whereagles]

mike777, on Nov 9 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is. lack of energy, too much demand, too little suppy, saving the planet, being green, helping the poor, other?

The problem is:

1. is oil is extremely important for societies (transportation, fertilizers, plastics) and its production is decreasing since july 2006.

2. there is no alternative at the moment that can generate the same amount of energy that oil does. We're talking big amounts of energy, like in 2000+ nuclear plants.

3. even if a new source of energy comes along, you'd still need to transform it into something vehicles can use.

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Nov 9 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Quote

1. I doubt that. Farming stuff is very energy-intensive. You'd need huge batteries to drive a tractor or threshing machine. Diesel is very hard to beat for that application. In fact, most experts say that priority #1 when fuel needs to be rationed is agricultural machines. Then public services (ambulances, police, transportation) and only then private people.

You could do it without batteries at all, of course- you can actually beam electricity from a tower to the machines, if you so desired. Or heck, you can run a cable, either trolley-style or just do an hour's worth of work followed by 10 minutes worth of charging. But I do think you can do it with batteries.

Quote

2. Again, heavy trucks cannot run on batteries for a long time. You can make hybrid diesel trucks, though.

But we're not talking a long time. 90% of truck transportation would just be from the rail lines to the local stores and back. Interstate trucking wouldn't exist, and trucks having to travel more than 50 miles each way would be only in the rarest of areas (and would probably remail on some mix of diesel and biodiesel).

Quote

2nd generation ethanol (switchgrass, wood) fares better, but is still under develpment.

Well, not saying we can do this tomorrow. I am saying that as oil prices go up more research will be done, and for things like switchgrass where we know it's very possible but just needs more time it will become profitible.

Quote

4. That price rates to be something like $250-300 a barrel (calc by Matt Simmons).

Sounds a little low. Europe already has $200 a barrel gas, thanks to artificially inflating the price with taxes. And you know what? We have at least one country in Europe where all of their electricity is produced without fossil fuels. France produces over 75% of its power through nuclear reactors.

Even if we switch cars to ethanol/electric plug-in hybrids (ie., normal hybrids but capable of using ethanol and can be plugged in to recharge the hybrid batteries as well as using gas power), which will strain the grid, countries like France are already building the nuclear power plants necessary.

When gas prices in the U.S. go to $8.00 a gallon, we'll start looking like Europe, with their well developed rail lines and nuclear power. When the gas prices in both countries is $20.00 a gallon it'll look like my vision of the future, or an alternative one.

Quote

Still, the big catch with alternatives is always the same: production doesn't scale to current demand.

I don't buy that for a minute. The only reason why we don't have a thousand nuclear reactors in the U.S. is because we don't want them, not because of some physical limitation. France will double its electrical output in the next 20 years simply because nuclear power is profitable at $8.00 a gallon. And we haven't even touched wind power, tidal power, etc.

The real problem is developing countries. Virtually all of these ideas take a well developed infrastructure and a lack of strife. You can't keep a nuclear power plant downstairs for when the power goes out. A plug-in hybrid may get good gas milage, but you lose most of the advantage when your power lines can't handle you plugging it in. Countries like China use the cheap gasoline to power their economy. When that goes, there goes that fast economic growth.

But Europe and North America? We'd actually better off if the price of oil slowly went above $500 a barrel. Well, except for the plastics issue, as somebody mentioned.

Farming machines: an unwinding electric cable? Well.. good luck

Trucking: yes. If things get to this point, we'd have managed a lot already.

Ethanol: it's not a question of money. Money is just a way to get it started. The problem is HOW MUCH ethanol can you make. And to that I say: "at best 20% of what is used today". The laws of physics superseed the laws of economics: no matter how much money you plug-in, you can't make 2 kgs of ethanol from 1 kg of switchgrass

$200 a barrel: hum.. no. In Europe cars have double the mileage of US cars, so we're at $100 a barrel too. As for France, yeah I knew they were heavy on the nukes. Better still: they reprocess the nuclear waste and reuse it. No containers needed for residues.

Scaling of alternatives: nuclear and coal can only generate electricity. Natural gas can be burned on cars but will lead to the same problem as oil: it runs out. Well, so will the others in the long run. The only thing that doesn't run out are renewables, like solar, wind and tidal. But those produce waaaaay less than thermal plants. You need like 2000 windmills at full power to do the same as 1 coal plant. Solar is even worse and tidal is on the same league. If you don't want to buy this, it's your problem. I know it's like that.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Farming machines: an unwinding electric cable? Well.. good luck

Funny, I mentioned four different methods, none of which involved an unwinding electric cable. And there are others, such as building a power rail into the farm- with harvesters getting so large, you could have the equipment ride on a rail and lose very little in terms of farmland.

But the easy way is wireless power transmission, using a microwave tower. This is old tech, and ideal for farms. Short range, no intervening terrain, and you don't use the equipment in bad weather. I expect that major farming equipment will mostly automated in the next decade or two (or at least remote-controlled), which will make even the nonexistent safety issues go away.

Quote

Ethanol: it's not a question of money. Money is just a way to get it started. The problem is HOW MUCH ethanol can you make. And to that I say: "at best 20% of what is used today".

Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Ethanol plug-in hybrids won't use even 20% of the liquid fuel that regular cars do now. You do understand how a plug-in hybrid works, right? You plug it in at your house or where you work, and your first 50 miles of driving or so doesn't use any fuel at all. Since that's most of the driving Americans do, the amount of liquid fuel they require is very low (not to mention that when they go past the 50 mile range, they are hybrids, after all). Of course, they require a great deal of *power*, but most of that is supplied through an outlet, not through the fuel tank.

Any hybrid can be made a plug-in hybrid cheaply. The only reason why the hybrids sold in the U.S. aren't plug-in hybrids is because the car manufacturers think it would confuse the consumers.

Quote

$200 a barrel: hum.. no. In Europe cars have double the mileage of US cars, so we're at $100 a barrel too.

Mileage doesn't matter- $200 a barrel is $200 a barrel. The reason WHY European cars are so efficient is because oil is $200 a barrel. When oil gets to $200 a barrel here, our cars will become as efficient as Europe's.

Quote

Scaling of alternatives: nuclear and coal can only generate electricity.

But electricity will cover well over 90% of our fuel needs. It'll cover short range transportation, because you'll be able to plug your car in. It'll cover long range transporation, because rail lines will do almost all of the long range transportation. It'll cover heat and power because we already use it.

The remainder- intercontinental transportation, car and truck trips over 50 miles, etc. can be handled by ethanol or similar fuels. The fact that we can't produce ethanol at the rate that we produce oil isn't going to matter, since essential traffic will require very little ethanol, and the price of ethanol will guarantee that supply meets the demand for the nonessential part- if ethanol is scarce, then plane tickets will rise, and there will be fewer plane trips. Hardly a killer.

Again, I expect will actually help the U.S.:

-Expensive intercontinental travel will hurt imports and help domestic production. Meanwhile, America mostly exports knowledge and technology: if we're going to sell Pepsi in Poland, we'll build the manufacturing and bottling factories in Eastern Europe.

-The United States will become a major Fossil Fuels exporter, and with the high prices will cash in.

-Countries with a strong infrastructure can use the new technology, old countries will be screwed.

Quote

If you don't want to buy this, it's your problem. I know it's like that.

Um, if you say so. I see the EU using half the oil per cap that the US, and I see no reason to believe that the US couldn't follow the EU's example. I see no reason why the (mostly already existing) technology for using electricity for transportation will not work. And I don't see how the small remaining use of oil for fuels cannot be replaced by other, less efficient, liquid fuels.

So I guess that means I don't buy this, whatever this is. Not for first-world countries.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Nov 9 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

Um, if you say so. I see the EU using half the oil per cap that the US, and I see no reason to believe that the US couldn't follow the EU's example.

Have you ever compared the population density of the US and Europe?
Have you ever compared the investment over time in public transport?

You don't get to wave a magic wand place a well engineered public transit system into 10s of thousands of suburbs... It takes time and money.

There is a reason that a number of folks on this list, myself included have long argued in favor of high gasoline taxes here in the US. We thought that it might be a good idea to prepare for these sorts of dramatic price increases well in advance of the (obvious) price shocks.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Quote

You don't get to wave a magic wand place a well engineered public transit system into 10s of thousands of suburbs...  It takes time and money.

Of course it does. It didn't happen in Europe overnight either. But the U.S. has insane gobs of money which we spend on stupid things, and we've got another 3-4 decades or so.

Quote

There is a reason that a number of folks on this list, myself included have long argued in favor of high gasoline taxes here in the US.  We thought that it might be a good idea to prepare for these sorts of dramatic price increases well in advance of the (obvious) price shocks.

Well, sure. F=MA. A high tax spreads the impact over more years, and lowers the force of the hit. The problems are....

1) The mememememe crowd would hate the new taxes. Heck, they hate any taxes.

2) Our Geopolitik boys want to spend everybody else's oil at a furious rate. They agree with me that a world with most of its oil drained will make the U.S. much stronger economically vs. the rest of the world, and they really don't care about the suffering the lack of oil would cause in less developed countries.

[han]

hrothgar, on Nov 9 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Nov 9 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

Um, if you say so.  I see the EU using half the oil per cap that the US, and I see no reason to believe that the US couldn't follow the EU's example.

Have you ever compared the population density of the US and Europe?
Have you ever compared the investment over time in public transport?

You don't get to wave a magic wand place a well engineered public transit system into 10s of thousands of suburbs... It takes time and money.

There is a reason that a number of folks on this list, myself included have long argued in favor of high gasoline taxes here in the US. We thought that it might be a good idea to prepare for these sorts of dramatic price increases well in advance of the (obvious) price shocks.

Also, you could use that money to fund other things, like hospitals and schools. Brilliant idea Richard.

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Nov 9 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

1. Farming machines: But the easy way is wireless power transmission, using a microwave tower. 

2. Ethanol plug-in hybrids won't use even 20% of the liquid fuel that regular cars do now.

3. I see no reason why the (mostly already existing) technology for using electricity for transportation will not work.

4. So I guess that means I don't buy this, whatever this is.  Not for first-world countries.

1. I don't really see microwave towers beaming 100 horsepower, but ok I never studied the issue. Not to mention what do you do when there are trees/hills in the middle.

2. That's what manufacturers claim. Reality may differ. Still, you need to power them up from the grid and....

3. ...for that you'd need to double/triple the grid power generation and distribution infrastructure. You can hardly afford to do it with coal for CO2 reasons and renewables will only solve 10-20% of the issue, so you're down to nukes. All this takes time and a lot of friction is possible, and you'd still need to manufacture the vehicles. It ain't easy... we're talking a bunch of exajoules of energy per year.

4. Honestly, I sure hope you're right. But, because I know how hard it is to get exajoules, deep down I fear this isn't another one of those "the market will fix it" kind of situation.

[mike777]

Fix what?

I still have not seen anyone post what the heck of the problem is.


Is it finding funding for schools or hospitals?

The only thing I know the problem is not is that we will never never run out of all of the oil.

Whatever the heck of a problem is I still think price will simply act as the ration agent while innovation and creative destruction fills in the gaps. We can only hope that the government at best funds basic science and stays the heck away.
Of course that is a pipe dream, we all know Congress will fund its pet pork projects. That is real life

The only other option is we all die in food riots.

[foo]

mike777, on Nov 9 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

"Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time."

It may be helpful for starters if you could clearly state what the difficult problem is.
lack of energy, too much demand, too little suppy, saving the planet, being green, helping the poor, other?

It's all of the above. We have to find solutions that adequately deal with =all= aspects of the world's currents problems or we are going to have lot's of people dying in a short time period at some point. Or we are going to permanenlu destroy the world's present ecosystem. Or both.