Powering the Future - discussion

[chip anderson]

You can increase the efficeny of automobiles right now today if you are willing to:

Give up automatic transmissions and substitute a manual transmission with a planetary overdrive.
Give up airconditioning.

Still want to be a greenie?

With the above you could easily get 60 mpg and run 85 to 90 mph all day long.

Chip

Even without the above today's care polutes less traveling from coast to coast than a piece of 1960 iron just sitting in the driveway. Gasoline ain't through yet.

[coda]

Either way you read it, SA, NG, PS, and pretty much every publication I read these days seems to have a bias that couldn't be described as conservative by any stretch. A lot of conservatives choose to rail against the media, organized science, etc. As usual, I think there is probably a happy middle ground at which the solutions- and the truth- exist. On the conservative end, there is no doubt we need to start considering things that may not be profitable in the near term (or perhaps the long term) if it can be proven that our quality of life will increase as a result. ...... On the scientific side, there needs to be a bit more "reality" into the P&L side of things.

I think this rises from a misunderstanding of 'science'. Science, unlike politics, isn't, or shouldn't be, based on opinion. The scientific community doesn't easily come to consensus on any issue, certainly not on issues of epic scope. When they do come to consensus it's because the overwhelming evidence indicates a certain 'truth' (e.g. that our consumption of fossil fuels has resulted in an atmospheric carbon level higher than the earth has experienced in millenia) you can generally rest assured that this represents the vast majority of scientists in the field. Of course there are scientists who disagree but they are typically in a vanishingly small community.

While scientific truth and fact (please understand I'm not speaking in a metaphysical or supernatural sense) may be unpleasant and may appear to have a political bias it should be understood that they have been exhaustivly debated by members of the scientific community from all sides of the political spectrum and, at least as initially presented by the scientific community, are generally free from political bias. Of course it's at this point that politicians grab a hold for all they're worth and screw everything up. Scientists rarely propose corrective action but often suggest timelines. For example the climatoligical scientific community talk about tipping points in climate change and suggest that our current CO2 emission rate coupled with our current acceleration in CO2 emission rate we'll reach a point in between 25 and 100 years where any actions we're likly to take (excluding extracting CO2 from the atmosphere) will be unable to control climate change. This isn't a political statement, merely the percieved scientific fact. The political statement becomes: if we don't accept Kyoto we're screwed. While some scientists may say this it isn't an expression of scientific fact.

They (we) produce the information, it's up to the politicians, corporations and most importantly citizens to decide what to do with it.

Maybe scientists can work on ways to cooperate with business to bring ecologically friendly fuel to market in a manner that is economically realistic.

Yup, that's what a lot of us scientists with jobs do, work with and for corporations on issues just like this one.

[Spexvet]

On the scientific side, there needs to be a bit more "reality" into the P&L side of things. Like it or not, economies have to run and the world is not a place where universal ideal solutions are likely. So, perhaps we can get businesses to work harder at finding ways to make a profit and clean up our consumption at the same time. Maybe scientists can work on ways to cooperate with business to bring ecologically friendly fuel to market in a manner that is economically realistic.

Or maybe some corporate big wigs can get by on a salary of $10 million instead of $20 million a year, which might offset some of the inefficiencies/higher costs associated with alternative fuels.

[chm2023]

What we lack is a policy/leadership/vision. I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that our dependence on foreign oil is something we need to wean ourselves from. Think the govt needs to announce a goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine by 2025, and go after it in conjunction with private industry (moon landing model). What is not acceptable is to just sit there and hem and ha. One thing (one of the few!) I have learned in life is that ignoring problems always makes them worse, not better.

[Pete Hanlin]

This isn't a political statement, merely the percieved scientific fact...
I think perceived is the operative word there. Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly convinced that we are having an effect on the global climate. I'm not certain that we can project out what the future effect will be to the degree that the scientific community would like us to believe, simply because their models are not that good. Does that mean we shouldn't try to curb emissions, toxic waste, etc.? Of course not. I do have a bit of a problem with the certaintude that "scientists" take about the impact of not signing a particular political agreement (which is exactly what you are pointing out as well).

Or maybe some corporate big wigs can get by on a salary of $10 million instead of $20 million a year, which might offset some of the inefficiencies/higher costs associated with alternative fuels.
Wow, those corporate bigwigs are quite a powerful bunch- now they are apparently capable of changing the global environment merely by cutting their paychecks! I hope someday I can wield the power these fatcats hold!

What we lack is a policy/leadership/vision. I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that our dependence on foreign oil is something we need to wean ourselves from. Think the govt needs to announce a goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine by 2025, and go after it in conjunction with private industry (moon landing model).
Actually, I see a fairly clear policy/vision/leadership. It may not agree with everyone's own vision, but it seems quite clear. Develop our own resources to ease the influence of foreign oil (which is being opposed), and develop ways to leverage our abundance of coal in as clean a manner as possible. A government mandate to eliminate one of the fundamental drivers of our economy (the internal combustion engine) just doesn't make a lot of sense to me- especially in the void of any real / remotely plausible identifyable alternative. Making the internal combustion engine more efficient, regulating overall MPG requirements, etc. seems to be a better way to moderate our consumption. Perhaps providing financial incentives for large corporations to develop new technologies / alternative fuel sources (large corporations, led by bigwigs, are the source of a lot of innovation) would be another good idea.

Overall, however, we have to be realistic! Fossil fuels have given us a wonderfully simple way to generate power for a couple hundred years. We're going to have to find something else that packs a sufficient punch and then figure out how to harness it if we seriously want to replace petroleum in our lives.

[rinselberg]

SES Dish Stirling System at dusk.

Phoenix firm to build huge solar farm
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET Aug. 14, 2005

A Phoenix company signed a landmark deal with a major utility in California to develop the world's largest solar power facility.

Stirling Energy Systems Inc. and Southern California Edison have entered into an agreement that would create a 7-square-mile solar farm in Southern California that by 2011 could power nearly 280,000 homes a year. Construction cost is estimated between $2 billion and $3 billion.

This 20-year power purchase agreement is being lauded as an unprecedented event in the history of alternative power because of its size and scope. Once completed, the solar farm in barren desert 70 miles north of Los Angeles will produce pollution-free and renewable energy at costs comparable to fossil fuel plants.

The solar farm is slated to produce 500 megawatts of power from 20,000 25-kilowatt Stirling solar dishes that are 38 feet tall. The project includes an option where the farm could be expanded to 850 megawatts and 34,000 dishes ...

Not photovoltaic solar cells, but solar powered Stirling engines

Stirling's concentrated solar dish -- unlike photovoltaic panels that collect sunlight on a much smaller scale -- harnesses heat from the sun with 82 mirrors and reflects it toward a series of hydrogen-filled tubes that expand when heated. The expanding gas cycles back and forth from cold to hot, and its movement powers a piston that creates up to 25 kilowatts of power.

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8956591/

SES: Stirling Energy Systems website
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp



reprinted from the Laramy-K World News Forum
Rinsie reports, you decide ...
http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=11

[chm2023]

[QUOTE=Pete Hanlin]Actually, I see a fairly clear policy/vision/leadership. It may not agree with everyone's own vision, but it seems quite clear.

Guess it depends on your definition of vision. Keeping on doing what you have been doing doesn't make it IMO. And eliminating the internal combustion engine is not "remotely plausible" in the same way computers, wireless communications, laser surgery, cloning, space exploration--just to name a few, were not remotely plausible, until they were!

The paradigm has changed--China and India are gobbling up oil at exponentially increasing rates, the mid east is becoming more and more unsettled--this is usually the cue for new solutions, new ways of thinking.

Speaking of energy, I saw the most heart rending thing on tv the other night. Baghdad now has 4 hours of power (electricity) a day. You can imagine what that means when the average temp is over 100F. They interviewed some folks in their homes where the decorative candles had melted from the heat--and the woman of the house was in full mufti. I practically fainted just looking at her!:( :( :(

[chm2023]

Perhaps providing financial incentives for large corporations to develop new technologies / alternative fuel sources (large corporations, led by bigwigs, are the source of a lot of innovation) would be another good idea.
.

I think this is a great idea--of course, the profits would be shared with the government, right?

This is the problem I have with the current energy bill--we subsidize the oil companies to support further exploration (poor things can't afford it by themselves). So if there is no pay off, the oil companies haven't beggared themselves is the rationale; but shouldn't the other side of this coin be that if they do hit pay dirt, the profits go back to the investor, in this case the government/taxpayers?? Hell no, that would be socialism, far left liberalism!!!! (What do we call subsidizing these guys???? Sounds like socialism to me!)

[Spexvet]

Perhaps providing financial incentives for large corporations to develop new technologies / alternative fuel sources (large corporations, led by bigwigs, are the source of a lot of innovation) would be another good idea.

Or, since they'll pocket the profits from the endeavor, they can invest part of their own salaries to finance their R&D!:angry:

[Pete Hanlin]

Sounds like we have a large problem with CEO salaries... I'm not sure what anyone at little ole Essilor makes, but I've had a peek into some of their decisions and efforts, and I believe they earn every penny.

Are there some CEOs with salaries that are high- or even outrageous? I suppose so- just like there are union workers in Detroit who make ridiculous sums of money. The best way to express displeasure at the wages of a CEO is simply to avoid purchasing stock in that company. Regardless, I believe the money required to explore for oil, develop pharms, etc. far exceeds even the salary of the most overpaid of CEOs.

As for the government reaping profits from the discoveries made when oil companies utilize government assistance for exploration or development of alternative fuels, that's rather missing the point. While the government doesn't have much business giving my money to oil companies (or artists, or college students for that matter), since the government does seem to be addicted to giving away our money it might as well be to corporations who are searching for the sources of power I will eventually consume. Using that rationale, it also makes sense to give a Pell Grant to the student who may one day invent the device that powers the future. Either way, its an investment in the "common good" (I suppose that's the overall argument for the federal government giving away money for various infrastructure, environmental, and other projects).

Regarding China, we are already feeling the affect of the modernization of this country. Steel and other resources are being consumed at a tremendous rate by China- which drives prices up around the world (supply and demand).

So, we're right back where we began- how do we power the future? It appears there are plenty of ideas, but no real agreement.

[Spexvet]

Sounds like we have a large problem with CEO salaries...

Wow, we agree on something! ;)

As for the government reaping profits from the discoveries made when oil companies utilize government assistance for exploration or development of alternative fuels, that's rather missing the point. While the government doesn't have much business giving my money to oil companies (or artists, or college students for that matter), since the government does seem to be addicted to giving away our money it might as well be to corporations who are searching for the sources of power I will eventually consume. Using that rationale, it also makes sense to give a Pell Grant to the student who may one day invent the device that powers the future. Either way, its an investment in the "common good" (I suppose that's the overall argument for the federal government giving away money for various infrastructure, environmental, and other projects).

You liberals slay me! Spend, spend, spend - that's all you want to do.
I think there's a huge difference between investing in education and investing in corporate profits.

So, we're right back where we began- how do we power the future? It appears there are plenty of ideas, but no real agreement.

That's because something will have to give, and there's no agreement on what that will be.

[chm2023]

Article--AP?--in paper today. Seems the permafrost in Alaska is melting, warmer than it's been in 100,000 years. (Guess they'll need to rename it tempofrost:shiner: ).


Don't worry, be happy.

[Pete Hanlin]

Hey, every time the wife and I decide on a cruise, I'm chanting "Alaskan, Alaskan, Alaskan," and she's chanting "Caribbean, Caribbean, Caribbean" (somehow, we always end up in the Caribbean)...

Looks like global warming may provide the optimum for us both! I can see Alaska, and my wife can lay out on their lovely beaches! :o

As for "corporate profit," the desire to earn a living / make a profit is one of the greatest motivators for innovation, progress, etc. in the history of mankind (also the reason behind countless wars and other unfortunate spin-offs). I have absolutely no problem with people who provide me with power, medicine, education, etc. making a profit if the result of their activities allows me to live a better life.

Now, back to the question, how do we live a better life without seriously compromising the lives of those to follow? Personally, I'm finding myself taking two fronts on this- 1.) in the short term, to get us less dependent on foreign oil, conserve and develop our own natural resources (including 10.4B barrels around the Artic Circle), and 2.) to lessen our impact on the ecology, further develop wind and nuclear power plants.

[chip anderson]

Have you see the effect the windmills we already have on the bird popuation? It's worse than the oil spill damage. You have to give up something for everything you get and so far greenie solutions are severly lacking. Ethanol cost $1.25 in fuel for every $1.00 worth produced and that's under ideal conditions with solar distillation.
Electric cars require more energy than gasoline (of course you don't see it as it's burned at the power plant).
You have to look all solutions from all sides. And so far gasoline has a lot to be said for it. Better technology with gasoline and the ability to produce more of it might be a better solution than all of the greenie ideas.

Chip

[Chris Ryser]

While looking for alternatives ........how about making more efficient use of what we got right now.

I do know first hand of an invention that would have reduced gas consumtion by 50% on regular car engines. The patents got bought up by some oil companies and were cremated without delay. Gone and forgotten.

How many similar cases have been manipulated over the last 50 or more years in a similar manner?

As long as governments everywhere are taxing the purchase of fuel and they would also tax newer and different fuels..........they go to bed with the oil companies or any other future fuel suppliers of newer technologies.

[coda]

I do know first hand of an invention that would have reduced gas consumtion by 50% on regular car engines. The patents got bought up by some oil companies and were cremated without delay. Gone and forgotten.

Can you provide patent numbers or even an inventors name? My company has excellent document and patent retrieval services, I'd be happy to post them to Optiboard if people are intersted.

I've been hearing these claims for more than 20 years. The patent lifetime is 20 years therefore at least the older technologies should be freely practicable by now.

[Chris Ryser]

Can you provide patent numbers or even an inventors name?

Name is Bill (William) Mahle, he said patents were filed 1934. He was at the Cambridge University finishing chemistry at the time.

[coda]

A patentent was issued in 1939 with a William Mahle listed as an inventor. This patent doesn't relate to improved efficiency of combustion engines. It does appear to be an organics gasification technique (similar to coal gasification?) but I'm not entirely sure. This is the only english language patent I has able to find with an inventor listed as: William Mahle, W. Mahle, B. Mahle, or Bill Mahle.

Perhaps Mr. Mahle wasn't listed as an inventor on the final patent?

You may access pdf images of this patent here: http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?pat...54&language=EN