----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:10 PM Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth
>> >> >> >> I'm thinking I follow you here, but it might be best if you are >> >> more >> >> explicit and show the reasoning behind 15% becoming 6%. >> > >> > 15% of electricity usage translates to 6% of power usage because >> > electricity >> > represents 40% of power consumption (.15*.4=.06). >> >> Question: How is that usefull if we are strictly talking about >> electrical usage? > > Well, "An Inconvenient Truth" is about global warming. I was > looking at all > forms of fossil fuel usage. The impact of wind on CO2 will depend > on how > much is not burned as a result of wind power. LOL! I thought the conversation had moved on from there.<G> Fair enough:) > > >> Question 2: What other forms of power are you including in that >> sum? > > Nuclear, hydro, coal, natural gas, oil....for use in heating, > electricity > generation, transportation, industrial production. I used the > eia.doe site > for numbers on this. OK....then I am following you well enough. > >> > OK, so that gives us optimistic numbers of 4.6%. >> >> >> And up! >> Remember this is currently a growth area so there is room for >> percentile improvement before new growth becomes marginally >> profitable >> or productive. > > But we were talking in the next 10 years, and these are optimistic > numbers. > The DOE is projecting, IIRC, about 2% of the total energy budget in > 20 > years. In 2004, the wind supplied 0.15% of the total energy budget. > My > projection of a couple percent translates (calling 2 a couple) into > about a > 1300% increase. That's quite an expansion. It is also good to know. Were you aware that people in west Texas are selling leases of their land to wind farm COs and Co-ops? It seems to be following the pattern of leases for oil or for cell phone towers. Shell and Exxon are also getting in on the act. It is in their interest to invest in any possible competition I suppose. > > >> It is an interesting subject. There is growth in usage and >> improvements in technology. >> More heads seem to be giving wind and other alt.en. modes >> consideration due to high energy costs. > > Well, they are now about triple what they were a few years > ago....and that's > not counting the low dip in '99....oil is at about 7x that minimum. > Coal is > the remaining low price energy source....its price hasn't gone up > much over > the last 5 years. > > So, this is a good test for how feasible alternative energy is. A > tripling > of the competitive price is quite a change. > That is what I'm seeing too. I gather that the higher prices are going to be with us for quite a while, so there may be opportunity for the investments to be substantially paid off before oil prices lower. > >> >> Just another item to look up. I read it in the last few weeks, so I >> should be able to find it again. >> Then again I may be conflating the Iceland >> situation................ > > I think there is a good chance of that. From wikpedia, here's a > listing of > wind power generation capacity by country: > Rank Country MW of Capacity > 1 Germany 18,428 > 2 Spain 10,027 > 3 USA 9,149 > 4 India 4,430 > 5 Denmark 3,128 > 6 Italy 1,717 > 7 Ukraine 1,353 > 8 China 1,260 > 9 Netherlands 1,219 > 10 Japan 1,040 > 11 Portugal 1,022 > 12 Austria 819 > 13 France 757 > 14 Canada 683 > 15 Greece 573 > 16 Australia 572 > 17 Sweden 510 > 18 Ireland 496 > 19 Norway 270 > 20 NZ 168 > 21 Belgium 167 > 22 Egypt 145 > 23 S Korea 119 > 24 Taiwan 103 > 25 Finland 82 > 26 Poland 73 > 27 Ukraine 73 > 28 Costa Rica 70 > 29 Morocco 64 > 30 Luxembourg 35 > 31 Iran 32 > 32 Estonia 30 > 33 Philippines 29 > 34 Brazil 29 > 35 Czech 28 > > Denmark is a fairly small country, and ranks third on the list. It > only > gets about 3% of its energy from the wind. Doing the country sizes > in my > head, I don't see a candidate to beat it. Well, that is 23% of Denmarks electricity use and it is 5th on the list.<G> > > >> > Agreed....I'm just pointing out that it will have minimal impact >> > on >> > global >> > warming. >> >> D'pends on how it gets used don't you think? >> Suppose we (as I wrote below in my last post) are charging our cars >> at >> night [substantially credited to wind power] and taking the edge >> off >> the afternoon peak we will be doing something productive that will >> not >> hurt (as in our pocketbooks) much at all. It might make other >> methods >> that will be costly a bit more bearable. And if we are at the same >> time expoting this tech to the third world and other trading >> partners........ > > But, this tech is expensive.. But cheaper than it was and getting cheaper. Economies of scale and all. Plus there is a return on investment that is better than your standard power means of generating power. >and the subsidies were profitable only after > energy prices tripled. I don't know that I can agree with that. Wind power has been on a steady climb for several years now at an increasing rate. I'm sure a plateau is forthcoming at some point. >When they go down again, the rate of increase will > go down. Plus, we are now cherry picking the ideal sites....later > wind > farms will have to be put in places that are not as productive. We are quite a ways from saturation. > >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these kinds of things work >> synergistically. > > Most of the time, though, they work off breakthroughs that just > happen. For > example, semiconductors and solid state physics beget Moore's law > (computers > double the capacity/cost ratio every 18 months or so)....upon which > hangs > most of the technological developments in the last 30 years. Even > developments that are not directly tied to Moore's law are usually > indirectly tied to it. > > We have not seen this in alternative energy. Turbine improvements > have been > modest...although real. What we've seen is a jump in prices. If > you > recall, predictions for alternative energy that are very similar to > the > present predictions were made 25 years ago. Even with billions put > into > alternative energy by the US and Europe every year, the advancements > over > that time have been modest. I think the improvements in overall design and engineering overshadow the improvements in just the tubine. Trotting out Moores Law and making an apples and oranges comparison is just a bit over the top.<G> > > In contrast, geosteering, which cut the price of oil field > development > considerably, was developed with a research budget of < 10 million. As we are near or past peak oil (at least the easy stuff) it does make sense to diversify our efforts. (And I would include oil tech in that, there do seem to be reserves that are not so tasty today that will seem delicious tomorrow) I think Iceland is an example of the boat not being missed. The opportunities were there and they were taken advantage of. > >>The way energy storage technology is improving it may >> be a whole new world in 20 years, but that is simply an unbridled >> statement of optimism<G>. > > > It is improving, and that is one important part of the puzzle. But, > at the > same time, it's not improving by a factor of 2 every 1.5-2 > years....like > computers have for the last 4 decades. We may hit a wall; we may > accelerate > improvement; we may trudge along. It depends on what's found in the > engineering and research. Natch! > >> >> Tangent: Hydrogen is fairly energy poor pound for pound. As much as >> I >> like hydrogen it seems a waste of energy when you could just power >> whatever directly with electricity. > > What's the energy density of batteries? From > > http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm > > and > > http://www.energyadvocate.com/batts.htm > > We see that the energy density per kg is much better for hydrogen > than any > battery. I was thinking more along the lines of oil based fuels being compared to hydrogen, but I see your point. > >> Well to be honest I see nano-manufactured lithium-ion batteries and >> ultra capacitors in cars coming too. I see a world where people for >> the most part do not miss their ICE autos very much and homes are >> not >> heated with incandescent light bulbs. > > I don't think we can count on stuff like that in the short to medium > term. > If we are to count on that type of technology, then our best bet is > to spend > money on mesoscopic physics now...and hope for a good outcome in 50 > or so > years. The batteries I refered to already exist. Toshiba is putting them on the market next year. It is a very big breakthrough in capacity and rechargability. Basically the poles of the lithium-ion battery are connected to a nano-molecular matrix that provides an amazing amount of surface area. This battery can be charged to 80% of capacity in a minute (full charge in an hour) and can be discharged at higher rates than older batteries could. This is going to change the potential for all electric autos among other things. > In the interim, nuclear energy is a clear alternative, that produces > no greenhouse gasses. But, since it's not PC, I fear that > environmentalists > will prevent it from doing much, in the US at least, to minimize > global > warming. I like nuclear myself and I think the enviromentalist have to a greater degree gotten the message. > >> I see more energy independence and people living off the grid >> because >> they don't like the way the energy giants treat them. > > Off the grid will cost a lot of money for most folks. Windmills are > an > option on ranches...but not in the city. There will be news stories > of > course, but I do not see how it will be a cost effective option for > the > average guy or gal....for many decades. At this point yes, but all these alt.techs. are getting cheaper, and as they do....... > > Now, it's always possible that a technological miracle will > happen....and > something will be found that will revolutionize the industry. But, > those > things don't tend to happen where and when we want....they just > happen. True, but what I am reading in the news these days is more like a slew of minor advances that are converging on an overall lifestyle change. Sort of like how things changed in the 60s as tech began its invasion of the home but a bit more explicit. > >> It will all take time and any time frame we set for the purpose of >> discussion is arbitrary. > > But, I think we do need to think of time frames. Counting on > technologies > that won't be ready for 50 years to solve present problems is not > very > productive. I'm thinking mainly of techs that are here or almost here. There is so much going on that it is easy to miss a lot of it even if you go looking for it. I miss a lot actually and I do keep an eye out. Feedsfarm.com is a site I keep in my RSS reader and I tend to find a good number of items by accident. Heh! You could almost start believing the Singularity is coming<G> > I have no problem > I hope not<G> > >> I think it mostly depends on the progress of storage technology. >> When >> you can generate power when you can and use it when you want, then >> that becomes an impetus to gain sustainable energy. > > Well, in the sense that intermittent power generation no longer is > problematic, yes. That is a plus. In a sense, solving this problem > is a > necessary, but not sufficient condition. > Further down on the Wiki wind power page there are some interesting items that address this issue. xponent Mad Hatter<G> Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
