Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see. So you think increased global purchasing of more hybrids is going to offset the growing energy needs of growing economies like China and India's? Really?

You may want to rethink that one.

Yup, I do think that. Trickle down effect of technology will change the way those economies GET their cars over the next two decades. The Chinese and Indians are going to be getting hybrids as well, if not straight-up electric motors, smaller and better suited to many of their cities.

My guess is that the developing economies of China and India aren't going to be any happier about importing billions of foreign oil then we are here at home; it's a drag on everyone. That's the beauty of the electric engine; you can power it with locally made juice Laughing

And they will.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bill- I presume that wasn't meant for me.

0 Replies

Cyclo wrote-

Quote:

That's the beauty of the electric engine; you can power it with locally made juice And they will.

And they probably will. But not while they can just pump oil out of the ground. All these fancy solutions are riding on the back of oil. You need to make electricity out of electricity.

You seem to think that the only energy input into a nuclear reactor is that for packing the core with some funny stuff and switching on.

Like when you watch movies forgetting everything that goes into it when the scene carries you away.

To talk about China and India as if they are two counters on a board game is egowhoosheroonies. And fancy not mentioning Pakistan.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Bill- I presume that wasn't meant for me.

Correct. That's for Cyclo. I've only time to bits and pieces today.

0 Replies

What about charging the wife's car batteries up on an exercise bike with a generator.

"I'm just popping out to get my highlights refreshed darling," would take on a whole new meaning I should think.

But even so, the gump depends upon oil for his food supply.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

So where are these robust technologies proving to work on a commercial scale in an efficient economic manner, cyclops? Today's ideas do not equal practical solutions that work today. Again, I repeat, you need a reality check. You seem to be entrenched in dreams of tomorrow, not the reality of right now and the next few years.

Quote:

You state,

Quote:
Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies.

Why is this a fact? If we aren't currently short, and every sign out there points to oil dropping in demand as a source for transportation power in the next 10-30 years, why should we keep drilling for new supplies?

Cycloptichorn

Okay cyclops, if drilling is not needed, you need to call the Saudis, the Venezuelans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Canadians, in fact every country, and break the news to them, drilling is useless. Tell them to quit drilling. It is of no use to drill. You said it right here. And if they question you, just tell them the truth, drilling will do no good.

Laughing

What a nutcase!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

So where are these robust technologies proving to work on a commercial scale in an efficient economic manner, cyclops? Today's ideas do not equal practical solutions that work today. Again, I repeat, you need a reality check. You seem to be entrenched in dreams of tomorrow, not the reality of right now and the next few years.

Quote:
You state,

Quote:
Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies.

Why is this a fact? If we aren't currently short, and every sign out there points to oil dropping in demand as a source for transportation power in the next 10-30 years, why should we keep drilling for new supplies?

Cycloptichorn

Okay cyclops, if drilling is not needed, you need to call the Saudis, the Venezuelans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Canadians, in fact every country, and break the news to them, drilling is useless. Tell them to quit drilling. It is of no use to drill. You said it right here. And if they question you, just tell them the truth, drilling will do no good.

What a nutcase!

If you paid closer attention, you wouldn't look so foolish. I asked why we need NEW supplies; I didn't recommend that we stop drilling CURRENT supplies.

I don't believe we need to increase the total amount of oil being produced at this point, but I'm not advocating dropping the amount produced until newer technologies take a better hold, either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you paid closer attention, you wouldn't look so foolish. I asked why we need NEW supplies; I didn't recommend that we stop drilling CURRENT supplies.

I don't believe we need to increase the total amount of oil being produced at this point, but I'm not advocating dropping the amount produced until newer technologies take a better hold, either.

Cycloptichorn

You don't drill for current supplies, cyclops, you pump it. Good grief, this is getting bizarre.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you paid closer attention, you wouldn't look so foolish. I asked why we need NEW supplies; I didn't recommend that we stop drilling CURRENT supplies.

I don't believe we need to increase the total amount of oil being produced at this point, but I'm not advocating dropping the amount produced until newer technologies take a better hold, either.

Cycloptichorn

You don't drill for current supplies, cyclops, you pump it. Good grief, this is getting bizarre.

Tomato, tomahto. Your position still sucks.

You lack vision, that's your problem, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Go back to school, cyclops. Good grief. No wonder you don't understand oil. You pump current supplies, you don't need to drill. Unless you work over a well with a workover rig, or stimulate an existing field with something.

This has not been mentioned either as much as needed, but new drilling of new resources is needed just to maintain production, to prevent further decline of production.

Again, go tell all the countries and tell them to quit drilling. You said it does no good, just pump what we have, or "drill current supplies." If they can even figure out what you are trying to tell them, they would laugh you out of town.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

So where are these robust technologies proving to work on a commercial scale in an efficient economic manner, cyclops? Today's ideas do not equal practical solutions that work today. Again, I repeat, you need a reality check. You seem to be entrenched in dreams of tomorrow, not the reality of right now and the next few years.

Again, produce the evidence, cyclops.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

So where are these robust technologies proving to work on a commercial scale in an efficient economic manner, cyclops? Today's ideas do not equal practical solutions that work today. Again, I repeat, you need a reality check. You seem to be entrenched in dreams of tomorrow, not the reality of right now and the next few years.

Again, produce the evidence, cyclops.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/energy_management.html

http://www.solar-reserve.com/faq.html

And here's my fave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Worldwide_list_of_pumped_storage_plants

Okie, you are an arrogant prick. You substitute dogma for actual thinking about the future. To you, every technology is non-existent right up until the point when it becomes widely used, and you can't even envision a different future then what we have today. You haven't done any research yet presume that you know what you are talking about... why?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Most people who have photovoltaic use solar photovoltaic battery charge controllers already - since years.

Storing wind energy and transferring it to the grid as required via battery-storage systems is tested in several countries as well.

And recentyl MIT researchers discovered a new energy storage solution.

It might not be perfect, all, but when you look at e.g. the history of rechargeable batteries and how the develop there goes on and since when ...

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

So where are these robust technologies proving to work on a commercial scale in an efficient economic manner, cyclops? Today's ideas do not equal practical solutions that work today. Again, I repeat, you need a reality check. You seem to be entrenched in dreams of tomorrow, not the reality of right now and the next few years.

Again, produce the evidence, cyclops.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/energy_management.html

http://www.solar-reserve.com/faq.html

And here's my fave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Worldwide_list_of_pumped_storage_plants

Okie, you are an arrogant prick. You substitute dogma for actual thinking about the future. To you, every technology is non-existent right up until the point when it becomes widely used, and you can't even envision a different future then what we have today. You haven't done any research yet presume that you know what you are talking about... why?

Cycloptichorn

Again, the future is the future, today is today. I would love to see wind turbines and solar produce virtually all of our energy, if it is commercially viable to do that. I am simply pointing out that the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale, so that utilities can wisely take the risk of investing in these types of plants. There is a learning curve, and we are on the very bottom of the curve. All of this takes time. For you to suggest that this can happen overnight is silly, cyclops, and when I point it out, you accuse of arrogance. I think you do not live in reality, you live in a dream world.

I think we are making progress, and all of your links are interesting, but none satisfy the challenge that I gave you. Some of these technologies may work on a limited scale, but how well they work longterm, how reliable, and how commercially viable, it is not at all a proven fact, and you are silly to think it is. I do see a plant here, another plant there, springing up here and there, but it will take alot more time to prove these things are viable on the scale that they will seriously impact the electrical generation mix that exists in this country. And I remain convinced that if a politician tries to force the issue, try to force one technology down our throats before the market dictates it, we will suffer the law of unintended consequences.

Again, we need all of the above. I have vision, but it is a balanced approach, let the technologies battle it out in a competitive atmosphere, and the most viable will win. It will happen, I have no doubts about it. Fact is, it is happening right now, just not on a pace to replace oil very soon, as it is just not practical to do it tomorrow or very soon. I have faith in the intrepeneural spirit, the inventiveness of man, but I do not have confidence in central planning.

Again, for the umpteenth time, read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics book.

0 Replies

No don't. That's bad advice.

If it is as good as good as the title suggests your delusions would be a thing of the past and you would be left staring into the abyss.

Reality I mean.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am simply pointing out that the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale, so that utilities can wisely take the risk of investing in these types of plants. There is a learning curve, and we are on the very bottom of the curve.

These "new" technologies have been developed for decades. Large scale solar and wind power plants of several 100MW are operating all over the world - some have been in operation for decades, too - and newer, larger ones are being installed. Same goes for pumped storage plants. The SEGS system has been in operation since 1985.

Of course, there's no way to simply switch to a new technology. It's a gradual process. But to claim that "the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale" is just ridiculous.

0 Replies

Whats wrong with most of your suppositions is you don't take the advance in technology into account. The future is in the electric motor and the energy of the sun which scientists are improving on every day.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I am simply pointing out that the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale, so that utilities can wisely take the risk of investing in these types of plants. There is a learning curve, and we are on the very bottom of the curve.

These "new" technologies have been developed for decades. Large scale solar and wind power plants of several 100MW are operating all over the world - some have been in operation for decades, too - and newer, larger ones are being installed. Same goes for pumped storage plants. The SEGS system has been in operation since 1985.

Of course, there's no way to simply switch to a new technology. It's a gradual process. But to claim that "the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale" is just ridiculous.

I think you misunderstand me. I fully understand that solar and wind farms are operational, but what I am talking about is being able to bring the solar and wind contribution over a certain threshold, simply because of the inherent problems of providing a constant and dependable power source. As pointed out, an efficient storage system is needed, and as you point out, I admit to being wrong in that commercial operations have been demonstrated, but we are still at the very bottom of the learning curve with these technologies, and the plants so far have been limited. Therefore, there is no practical way to bring this technology online immediately on the scale necessary to drastically change the energy mix very soon.

As I have said before, the situation is evolving now, and a plant here or there will become operational. Right now, I think many wind farms are being built throughout the great plains, that I know, one being near Woodward, Oklahoma, just completed, another I know of in the Texas Panhandle, and more in Colorado, these I have seen. And I have seen the well known one in California. I am sure there are many others. The Danish company, Vestas, is to build a factory somewhere in Colorado, to build turbines. I posted not long ago a picture of a solar farm in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. So when wind and solar contribution reaches the point of being a practical minor supplement to the primary energy source that gives us the guaranteed supply 24/7, then perhaps the technologies of efficient storage of energy from solar and wind will become more perfected. Until that happens, the amount that wind and solar can contribute is limited.

Hey, I am all in favor of the direction we are going, but I am arguing that a dose of realism is needed here in regard to a realistic timetable, at least 20 or 30 years, not 5 or 10 years.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

No don't. That's bad advice.

If it is as good as good as the title suggests your delusions would be a thing of the past and you would be left staring into the abyss.

Reality I mean.

Some things do in fact have simple principles involved, and when you fail to understand them or acknowledge them, you are therefore trying to make the subject complicated. Economics can have many complications, but there are simple principles that govern the whole thing. Sowell has the ability to lay out the subject in simple terms and principles. Sorry you want to obfuscate the subject with something more complicated. I personally think the book is a good one, and explains some things that so-called intelligentsia can't see because they can't see the forest for the trees.

A good example is the oil debate. Democrats, supposedly very smart and intelligent people, claim drilling would do no good. I think that is ridiculous on its face, and defies simple principles of economics. If the Dems are correct, they should therefore convince the U.N. to issue a resolution for all countries to stop drilling immediately, because drilling for oil is obviously of no benefit, that according to Democrats. That is an example of stupidity, a failure to recognize or acknowledge a simple economic principle.

0 Replies

okie wrote-

Quote:

Some things do in fact have simple principles involved, and when you fail to understand them or acknowledge them, you are therefore trying to make the subject complicated.

I don't know what you mean by that. What are these simple principles? Where have I failed to understand them? And in what way am I trying to make the subject complicated?

I should imagine that Dems are going against drilling to get votes from the environmentalists. In power they would drill if need be.

Convincing the UN to issue the instruction you suggest is an impossibility.

I certainly don't think that charging other people with lacking knowledge is proof that you have knowledge.

I consider your post okie to be bluster.

Drilling is a very complex matter. There's no black and white positions. I think you are talking about political posturing.

0 Replies

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know