Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

How were those turbines shipped, HB? Sailing ship? Ox cart over the ice pack? Or were they transported via what is now the 'old fashioned way', i.e. cargo plane or petroleum powered ship?

That is the thing that some don't wish to factor into the equation. Is wind power providing all the energy needed to build them? Crate them? Ship them? Set them up? Or are we having to use more conventional forms of energy just to build them and get them set up in place?

How does the postman who drives a 200-mile route in rugged rural terrain deliver the mail? How does the freight train haul 500 truck trailers across country in order to deliver foodstuffs and critical products to thousands of people who need them? How do our European friends come calling and how do I get to my appointments in the morning without using at least some petroleum?

So yes, yes YES let's keep finding substitutes for petroleum where practical and efficient to do so. But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on oil.

Drill - drill - DRILL!

i don't think i ever said : NO OIL/PETROLEUM EVER .

Quote:

But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on oil.

should the people 200 years ago have said :

Quote:

But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on animal power .

i doubt foxfire would have said that ???
perhaps i will be corrected by foxfire ? :wink:

(let's get some more horses and oxen and let's not have any of those newfangled steam conveyances !) .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :

Quote:
How were those turbines shipped, HB? Sailing ship? Ox cart over the ice pack? Or were they transported via what is now the 'old fashioned way', i.e. cargo plane or petroleum powered ship?

That is the thing that some don't wish to factor into the equation. Is wind power providing all the energy needed to build them? Crate them? Ship them? Set them up? Or are we having to use more conventional forms of energy just to build them and get them set up in place?

How does the postman who drives a 200-mile route in rugged rural terrain deliver the mail? How does the freight train haul 500 truck trailers across country in order to deliver foodstuffs and critical products to thousands of people who need them? How do our European friends come calling and how do I get to my appointments in the morning without using at least some petroleum?

So yes, yes YES let's keep finding substitutes for petroleum where practical and efficient to do so. But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on oil.

Drill - drill - DRILL!

i don't think i ever said : NO OIL/PETROLEUM EVER .

Quote:
But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on oil.

should the people 200 years ago have said :

Quote:
But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on animal power .

i doubt foxfire would have said that ???
perhaps i will be corrected by foxfire ? :wink:

(let's get some more horses and oxen and let's not have any of those newfangled steam conveyances !) .
hbg

I didn't mean my post to be chastising you. But you did pretty much seem to be dismissing the importance or role of petroleum in your post.

When the first diesel engines started running, you still saw the old coal burners puffing black smoke and spitting cinders for a generation. I imagine when the first automobiles started rolling off the assembly line, nobody was suggesting that the whip and buggy factories shut down and farmers stop breeding carriage horses. The coal burners didn't go into mothballs until the diesel engines had proved themselves to be the better way to move stuff on the rails. The whip and buggy factories didn't go out of business or retool to make different products until the automobile became the vehicle of choice for most Americans. Evenso, it was many decades catching on everywhere and there are still places in the world where horses, mules, and donkeys have not been replaced.

The long distance bus companies thrived for many decades and only began to decline when air travel became accessible and affordable for most people here in America. It has taken thirty years for cell phones to make pay phones mostly irrelevent--about the same length of time for computers to make the typewriter obsolete.

To think that it will require any less time to make the transition from petroleum to alternate fuels and building materials just isn't reasonable.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pushing more drilling of oil doesn't start the process which will take 'decades.' You start that clock by actually making investments in the new system and new infrastructure.

As I said in the other thread - a compromise can be reached, but part of that compromise is going to be major spending on renewable energy, not just increased drilling...

But to address the question of the day, the technology IS there, it does exist, it is tried and proven. It will never work on a large scale until we try to make it work on a large scale. We should start that immediately.

Cycloptichorn

Why do you say pushing for more drilling won't start the process? Are you implying that it will stall the process because of increasing oil supply and lowering oil price? You have argued that more drilling in ANWR, for example, won't accomplish hardly anything, in fact it is so miniscule as to amount to mere penny or pennies per gallon of gas and will not impact oil supplies. You can't have it both ways, cyclops.

My argument has always been consistent, while yours is not. I believe we should do more drilling, while developing alternative energy supplies. We can and should do both. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is seldom a wise strategy for more than one reason, not the least of which is national security. It makes absolutely no sense to allow domestic oil production to drop and continue to import more oil and gas, which is what will happen if we do not aggessively continue to develop our own supplies.

There are lots of technologies that exist, and tried and proven on very limited scales, but they are not perfected or practical on a large scale. Get that into your head, cyclops, it is an inescapable fact. You live in a dream world if you believe otherwise. There is no doubt that alot of things are happening as we speak, but no realistic projection can see wholesale changes in the time frame that you apparently must believe. Besides, our energy demand continues to rise, which is another factor that continues to impact the situation.

Even if we increase renewables, will they increase enough to offset the increased demand of energy so that oil demand will drop? I doubt it.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/
The following from the above link shows production and projected demand.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/2004/images/US.gif

0 Replies

firefox wrote :

Quote:

To think that it will require any less time to make the transition from petroleum to alternate fuels and building materials just isn't reasonable.

there may never be a complete transition , but to me that doesn't mean
to keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet we should NOT push ahead with alternate (and less polluting) energy sources NOW !

there were some old photos from NYC shown some time ago on TV from the days when public transportation was still mainly by horse-drawn streetcars and carriages .
if more modern modes of transportation would not have come in , apparently NYC would have drowned in horse manure .

the times they are changing - sometimes slowly , sometimes a little more quickly .

usually it takes time for new ideas to take hold but once they are accepted they'll usually move rather fast .

(anyone still have a typewriter ? - i couldn't give mine away - not even the salvation army was willing to take it - it wound up on the scrapheap .
or how about "punched card" machines , collators and tabulators - they can still be found in museums ) .
hbg

the signs of progress :

american horsedrawn streetcar

http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Streetcar-Pulling-Horses.jpg

german streetcar 1882

http://www.berliner-verkehrsseiten.de/strab/Geschichte/Lichterfelde/Tw_Lichterfelde_1882.jpg

btw electric streetcars are making a comeback - bombardier's modern streetcar

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/flexity_swift_istanbul.jpg

0 Replies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/World_energy_consumption%2C_1970-2025%2C_EIA.png

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/ussectorcons.gif

A couple of graphs for a dose of realism in this debate. I have tried to explain it in words, but the graphs clearly show that a swift turnaround is simply not possible. You do not turn an oceanliner on a dime, period.

This will take decades at least to see a hoped for replacement of oil. Further, it is debatable whether replacing oil is wise if it is not clearly economically beneficial to us right now. Phased replacement as dictated by the market is prudent and desireable, and more drilling in places like offshore and ANWR are not only prudent, but crucial to our economic well being.

0 Replies

my UNEDUCATED guess is that the oil use for transportation services will at least be slightly less than projected .
from what i read americans are already driving less and buying more fuel-efficient cars .
i also hear that many airlines are either cutting back on flights or are switching to (sometimes smaller) more fuel-efficient planes (to increase their payload ! ) . even such simply changes as increasing flight-times marginally and taking better advantage of prevailing winds has reduced fuel use (a/t airline announcements) .

imo we are already moving in the right direction .

(we are switching from a 1999 olds intrigue - a nice car with 205 hp , but a gashog , particularly in the cold canadian winters - to a nice spacious and more fuel-efficient four cylinder with 190 hp TODAY ! Very Happy

)
hbg

0 Replies

I think we're arguing on the same page Hb, but with perhaps a somewhat different perspective. (And I could be wrong about that.)

AGW religionists want conservation, but to save the planet.

AGW skeptics want conservation, but to conserve our natural resources so that we don't use more than available supply.

AGW religionists want vigorous R&D toward renewable energy to get us away from petroleum either entirely or as much as possible.

AGW skeptics want vigorous R&D toward renewable energy and more efficient/effective energy because they see that as the path to a brighter, more livable, more prosperous world for everybody in the future. They also want vigorous petroleum and natural gas exploration and production as in the best interest of everybody in the here and now.

AGW religionists approve of small, fuel efficient cars and/or mass transit preferably that run on something other than petroleum or other carbon based energy.

AGW skeptics approve of small, fuel efficient cars and mass transit when these are practical or an economic necessity. AGW skeptics also value choice and personal freedoms and resist giving up those choices and freedoms when it is unnecessary to do so. (Example: If the petroleum supply is secured for the foreseeable future, if there is no significant GW that we can realistically do anything about, and if I can afford a Hummer and want one, I want the right and ability to make that choice.)

AGW religionists approve of fewer, more fuel efficient planes, and fewer routes for the same reasons as they want other stuff.

AGW skeptics want plentiful cheap fuel so that airlines can offer favorable travel times, plenty of seats and destinations at affordable rates so that all the human activities--tourism, business, commerce, industry, etc.--that depend on human mobility can thrive and prosper and improve quality of life for us all.

AGW religionists (or at least many of them) approve of and push bio fuels as important to preserve the plant.

AGW skeptics see bio fuels as less efficient than petroleum or other forms of energy and would prefer that arable land be devoted to growing food.

AGW religionists want to protect the land, air, and water and the living things on Earth and see human activity as detrimental to that.

AGW skeptics want to protect the land, air, and water and the living things on Earth and see human activity as part of the whole.

One side sees preservation of the planet from what they perceive as impending doom as the imperative and they look to government to accomplish that.

The other side isn't ready to buy the doom and gloom scenario and prefers freedom and opportunity and ability to make choices as they believe that is the key to quality of life for all and they see excessive government regulation and mandates as counter productive to that.

The way I see it, it is all a matter of perspective based on what is actually believed to be real.

0 Replies

http://media.economist.com/images/columns/2008w33/exhaustAP.jpg

Quote:

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11916299

I knew it, someone finally invented a plutonium-powered car - well, almost. To hell with Ghawar, Sakhalin, Venezuelan tar sands etc

0 Replies

Don't jump the gun, High Seas!

"Dr Richter thinks it will be possible to reduce fuel consumption by around 5% using a thermoelectric generator in the exhaust. He hopes to see production cars using the technology by 2013."

And what about the energy and cost required to mine, refine, and manufacture these things?

0 Replies

Okie - you will note I carefully added "almost" invented.... not quite there yet.

Besides, Dr Richter was talking about thermogeneration in general, not generation using plutonium per se. But plutonium should work in cars and planes - it's been used in satellites all those years:

"The nuclear batteries of Cassini and other spacecraft are made of plutonium 238 and are known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators. As the plutonium 238 dioxide undergoes natural radioactive decay, it gives off heat, which is converted into electric power...........

A single battery is nearly 4 feet long, holds 24 pounds of plutonium and puts out 296 watts of electric power, which decreases over the years as the plutonium decays. Ulysses has one battery. Galileo has two. Cassini has three that are to generate 675 watts of power when it reaches Saturn in 2004. "

675 watts is enough to power a car.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I can see it now, every automobile or truck becomes a superfund site!

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie - that's the least of it, think of all the forms we'll have to fill in before we can buy a car!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

MSNBC reports :

"Fewer Americans hit the road in JuneBy JOAN LOWY updated 1:50 p.m. ET, Wed., Aug. 13, 2008Font size: WASHINGTON - As summer vacation season kicked in, Americans got out of their cars, driving 12.2 billion fewer miles in June than the same month a year earlier.

The 4.7 percent decline, which came while gas prices were peaking, was the biggest monthly driving drop in a downward trend that began in November, the Federal Highway Administration said Wednesday.

"Clearly, more Americans chose to stay close to home in June than in previous years," said Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.

Overall, Americans drove 53.2 billion fewer miles November through June than they did over the same eight-month period a year earlier, according to the highway agency's latest monthly report on driving. That's a larger decline than the 49.3 billion fewer miles driven by Americans over the entire decade of the 1970s, a period marked by oil embargoes and gas lines, the agency said."

seems that the fuel consumption is already coming down .
isn't it amazing what higher prices can do to demand ?
hbg

1 Reply

@hamburgboy,

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/8939_palmsprings.jpg

Alas for YOUR solution, Hamburger, those wind farms cause vast health problems in their vicinity>

Quote:

However, a new study suggests that living near a wind farm can cause serious health problems; including causes sleep disorders, difficulty with equilibrium, migraine headaches, panic attacks, and other issues.

The research was conducted by Dr. Nina Pierpont, who says the culprit is the effect on the inner ear by low energy noise from the turbines. Learning disorders and child behavioral problems were also noted in her results.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Finds+Health+Problems+from+Wind+Farms/article12667.htm

> my vote remains for plutonium engines.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

foxy wrote-

Quote:

And we didn't even discuss the hundreds or thousands of critical products that are made from petroleum and for which there is no practical substitute.

So much so that I read an article once which said that the stuff we put in our cars is a by-product and getting motorists to burn it off was better than pouring it in the rivers. And that more and more cars were needed due to the demand for those other products increasing.

So it's hard to tell what to do. A few wind farms are pip squeaking. I saw a film of a row of wind turbines and 3 of them were stopped for maintenance and their location was such that without gas you couldn't maintain them at all.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I occassionally fly to the Abilene, Texas airport during the day training flight students. There is a large wind farm north of the airport. Every time I've flown there, I've noticed that more than 90% of the wind mills there were stationary despite 20 to 30 mph winds in the area. I've also noticed that the moving windmills are not the same each trip. I don't know the reason why most were stationary and only a few were moving.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

The reason is obvious. Building wind farms is good fun. Once they are built they can be used for all sorts of things as long as it isn't efficient energy production under present circumstances.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The wind farms I see, it seems like an estimated 10 to 20 percent are not moving, usually. I read an article one time about capacity of wind farms are often a far cry from what they actually practically produce over a period of time. We often read news clips about how many homes a wind farm is capable of powering, but the result day to day is often far less than that.

1 Reply

@okie,

A wind turbine must be able to withstand the highest winds expected to occur in its planned physical lifetime. It must also be sized so that it can produce its maximum power output at the highest (say) 10 percent of the expected wind velocity distribution in its location. That means inevitably that the average power output of such a device is likely much less than half its design maximum power output.

This is simply a fact that must be dealt with in design. Areas that have higher average wind velocities and narrower distributions of wind velocity are therefore more suitable locations for such turbines. This is not so much an intrinsic defect of wind power, as a design consideration in optimizing it in a given location. The real defect with current wind turbine designs is that they are, on average , a much more expensive source of power than coal or gas fired plants, which themselves are much more expensive sources than nuclear plants.

We can hope for and expect new designs of lighter and more durable wind turbines that can function relaibly for long periods without maintenance. That is what is required to get the cost down to competitive levels. However, it is likely to take some time.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

This site says wind farms run about 20 - 40% capacity. Other power plants are typically higher, for example nuclear maybe 60 - 100%, and coal fired plants 70 - 90%.

It is evident that to supply all electrical demand with wind, we would need at least 3 times, probably 4 times or more the amount of electricity needed in terms of rated capacity, plus a massive storage system. Solar would be no good at night, so already the capacity of solar is limited to only half a day, plus factor in cloudy days.

And as has been discussed at length, massive storage systems that would allow solar and wind to exceed more than a minor contribution to the mix, they have not been developed or perfected on a commercial scale so that anyone would invest into these things in the near future. It will take alot more work and time, and meanwhile wind is delegated to being only a minor contributor for electrical generation only.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf

2 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know