Where is the US economy headed?

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
When man feels oil is at the point of depletion, another energy source will be found.

Where?

That's for future engineers and scientists to figure out.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Miller wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
When man feels oil is at the point of depletion, another energy source will be found.

Where?

That's for future engineers and scientists to figure out.

Nothing left to find...

0 Replies

I disagree. It wasn't that long ago (last century) that solar panels came into vogue. Windmills and other seemingly innate material has the potential to be used for energy - even water.

0 Replies

Dream on!

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Miller wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
When man feels oil is at the point of depletion, another energy source will be found.

Where?

That's for future engineers and scientists to figure out.

Nothing left to find...

You believe we've achieved the pinnacle of energy generation technology?

Really?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Cyclo, Do you have a source for that claim?

Hmm, well, left off a zero or two. Damn scientific american!
Cycloptichorn

More like 3 zeros, cyclops, so you are approaching a thousand times off. I thought your claim sounded hokey, as some fairly large solar farms only are big enough to power a small city or large town, and of course only when the sun is shining. So how many miles wide and miles long would that have to be again?

But I do agree that we will probably continue to discover new and better ways, more efficient ways to collect solar energy.

I will go back to what I've said before, that energy generation might become more site specific in the future, somewhat like PC's emerged as more efficient than main frame computers. Not everything is most efficient as a centralized function.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Cyclo, Do you have a source for that claim?

Hmm, well, left off a zero or two. Damn scientific american!
Cycloptichorn

More like 3 zeros, cyclops, so you are approaching a thousand times off. I thought your claim sounded hokey, as some fairly large solar farms only are big enough to power a small city or large town, and of course only when the sun is shining. So how many miles wide and miles long would that have to be again?

But I do agree that we will probably continue to discover new and better ways, more efficient ways to collect solar energy.

I will go back to what I've said before, that energy generation might become more site specific in the future, somewhat like PC's emerged as more efficient than main frame computers. Not everything is most efficient as a centralized function.

I agree that decentralized power generation is the way to go. It is far more efficient, as there is little transmission loss.

I imagine a giant, decentralized power grid, in which those who don't use power realize a nice profit off of selling it to the grid; and that the main stations (nuke, wind, solar) act as backups and primary load bearers.

Advances in capacitance technology would be helpful as well. I know that my house, for example, doesn't need much energy at all between 9am and 5pm during the week. Could be charging batteries with any energy generators that there are out there.

Read a proposal showing that there is a large untapped area for solar collection... inside the house. Moderate amounts of sunlight filter in through windows, all day long, which impact surfaces which could easily be covered in solar materials; cabinet doors, tops of bookshelves. Anything. An interesting concept.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree that decentralized power generation is the way to go. It is far more efficient, as there is little transmission loss.

I don't think that's true. Back when I studied physics, I had to work this out as an excercise in electrodynamics. It turned out that at very high voltages and frequencies, transmitting electrical power is very efficient over any realistic length of wire. On the other hand, big power plants are significantly more efficient than small ones at generating electrical power. Peer-to-peer networks are a sexy technology these days, but the economics of power generation don't bear them out for the electrical grid.

(Speaking of economics -- did you get my PM?)

Edit: Just noticing you guys were talking about solar power. That's different -- unless you build a collector generating steam, and use the steam to power a turbine. Then you're back to big generators.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree that decentralized power generation is the way to go. It is far more efficient, as there is little transmission loss.

I don't think that's true. Back when I studied physics, I had to work this out as an excercise in electrodynamics. It turned out that at very high voltages and frequencies, transmitting electrical power is very efficient over any realistic length of wire. On the other hand, big power plants are significantly more efficient than small ones at generating electrical power. Peer-to-peer networks are a sexy technology these days, but the economics of power generation don't bear them out for the electrical grid.

No doubt the losses on high tension, high frequency networks are reduced - but losses still remain. I recall a comparative engineering problem (a long time ago) in which we calculated the relative energy costs for transmitting power on such a network with the power potential of a tanker truck loaded with petroleum covering the same distance on a level road. The truck won hands down. I can no longer be certain there weren't some power conversion issues imbedded there, however.

The merits of Cyclo's point may relate more to solar power -- considering the conversion losses, local direct use of solar energy for heat is the best bet to counter its otherwise rather dismal economic potential.

0 Replies

I also thought that a combined system of internal and external solar powered energy is the best of two worlds; it guarantees energy for those folks who can afford to install solar panels to reduce the demand on energy providers, but can still purchase power if they so desired.

0 Replies

Locally-powered solar energy would transform the way we think about certain things.

Let's say that critical components of one's household - heating, keeping the fridge running, etc - were hooked up to the local solar instead of the main grid. No more outages when the main grid goes down.

Solar heating of water is the way to go, for sure. And I like using my solar stove quite a bit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can just see solar power cooling the Sears Tower in the summertime! Laughing

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

I can just see solar power cooling the Sears Tower in the summertime!

You jest, but it is a likely possibility.

Solar power-generating windows are a reality; the Sears Tower has quite a bit of prime window space; not hard to see where this is going.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I also thought that a combined system of internal and external solar powered energy is the best of two worlds; it guarantees energy for those folks who can afford to install solar panels to reduce the demand on energy providers, but can still purchase power if they so desired.

I think that would occur in a transition, and it is beginning to happen now on a very small scale. The fact that solar panels for a home are beginning to become economical is significant. The factor that must be overcome is the instant gratification factor for homes, and whether a potential homeowner plans to stay in a home long enough for the payout to occur, but also resale value is a plus as well, that is if the system truly works well and is not an albatross.

The other factor that I have not become familiar with, solar is perhaps not a problem now with availability of materials and disposal, but what if the industry expands by a factor of 100 or 1,000 for example?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I also thought that a combined system of internal and external solar powered energy is the best of two worlds; it guarantees energy for those folks who can afford to install solar panels to reduce the demand on energy providers, but can still purchase power if they so desired.

I think that would occur in a transition, and it is beginning to happen now on a very small scale. The fact that solar panels for a home are beginning to become economical is significant. The factor that must be overcome is the instant gratification factor for homes, and whether a potential homeowner plans to stay in a home long enough for the payout to occur, but also resale value is a plus as well, that is if the system truly works well and is not an albatross.

The other factor that I have not become familiar with, solar is perhaps not a problem now with availability of materials and disposal, but what if the industry expands by a factor of 100 or 1,000 for example?

Well, it is helpful that one of the major components for solar panels is silicon. No shortage there.

You bring up a good point, however, that many of the materials for high-tech stuff are scarcer then we like. For example, much of today's computer technology relies on a substance called Coltan, which is really only available in big strip-mines in Africa:

http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~jsokolov/211pygmy1.htm

Managing resource acquisition is going to be critical to the exploding technological boom that we are seeing.

Then again, imagine all if the effort spent digging up coal and oil were re-directed... the labor is there to do it. Advances in plastic solar technology will help tremendously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We also don't use enough fiber optics to light up homes and businesses.

0 Replies

I am so old that I remember when nuclear energy was going to be so cheap that they wouldn't even bother putting a meter on your house! And I guess it was back in the late 70's or early 80's that there was a first attempt at solar, complete with tax credits. It was a failure, probably because the technology simply wasn't there.
It sounds like several of yall here know a lot more about this that I do, but I have been collectiung info about solar and green architecture into a notebook. I am putting the land into a project in mid-town Charlottesville that could result in an 8 story and a 6 story building on Main Street. Mixed use: retail, office and residential.

Certainly the technology is vastly improved regarding solar. The question is whether or not it is good enough to justify the investment (the payback period required to recoup in energy costs what you paid extra to build it).

I recall talking how a lot of technology advances have been made in the last decade in lighting and glass etc. It might have been here so I won't risk repeating myself. Suffice it to say that they have been small steps but when multiplied out by the number of light buls is huge.

I recently read about a pilot program where a utility is giving away energy efficient light bulbs. The goal is to reduce demand on the utility's production capacity and has the side effect of reducing consumers' electrcity bills.

One other new development: some of the utilities (including Virginia Power) are splitting themselves up. There will end up being VA Power Generation and Va Power Distribution. Two independent companies with different boards of director, shareholders etc, and objectives. In exchange for allowing this, rates had to be frozen for a few years and other generators of power, regardless of where they are, could compete for the business. One of my buildings was put (by my choice) into a pool of other customers and that X-kw hours was shopped around to producers elsewhere.
So far there have been no bids. Perhaps it was too early or perhaps it was a bad idea. I don't know the answer.

0 Replies

rjb, We have replaced most of our light bulbs with low energy bulbs. We even use more 100 watt bulbs which gives us more light (we need better lighting at old age) at cheaper cost over the 75 or 50 watt bulbs. It stays cool to the touch too! I love it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rjb, We have replaced most of our light bulbs with low energy bulbs. We even use more 100 watt bulbs which gives us more light (we need better lighting at old age) at cheaper cost over the 75 or 50 watt bulbs. It stays cool to the touch too! I love it.

Us too. Pacific Gas and Electric gives a rebate to retailers for the bulbs, which you can by for $1 apiece.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would never have thought of this as being worth the effort. This is from an AP story on 7/14/07. I am summarizing mercilessly.
The bank Credit Suisse, which occupies the old Met Life building (the tallest building in NYC before the Empire State was erected) freezes water in huge tanks at night, when electricity rates are cheaper, and circulates the air from the melting ice during the day to the 2 million sq feet of office space. The article says sq ft which I guess would be about 20 milion cubic ft. 50,000 gallons of water are involved but that water is frozen and thawed repeatedly in sixty four 800 gallon tanks in the basement.
Retrofitting the system cost $3 million but the energy saving is supposedly significant. The AP article's writing gets a bit sloppy at that point, simply saying the energy savings are in the millions (by reaping the differential between day time and night time rates). But then it also says that overall energy use at Credit Suisse has been reduced by 2 million kw/hours annually because of the system. I haven't figured that out.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know