The developed world's been enjoying incredibly cheap energy courtesy of the Carboniferous Period for the past 150 years. The entire economy of the developed world is completely, inextricably, irrefutably based upon it. Fossil fuel deposits are kind of solar energy stored in battery cells- but think solar power, compressed & concentrated over ~100 million of years. Incredibly potent. It's been stored there waiting to be exploited for another 300 million years, like a tycoon's fortune willed to a lucky grandchild. The thing is, we've been pissing through it, just like a rich kid squandering the family's wealth. Now some are betting that technology is going to magically save us from the coming energy crisis. But that kind of thinking is like the rich kid, realizing he's all but chewed through his entire inheritance, deciding to head to Las Vegas in a panic and betting the remainder at the roulette table.
Modern solar technology is great but it won't fill the fuel tank of the modern world. There is no watt-per-watt replacement for fossil fuels, specifically coal, oil and methane. Nothing that matches the net energy gain of extracting the concentrated/compressed sunlight artifact from the earth and burning it. Once these potent energy sources are gone, they are gone, and subsequent generations will be left holding the bag in the form of a more barren, more contaminated, less bio-diverse world. Civilization and it's energy consumption will gradually downsize as fossil fuels are depleted. It won't be the first time the pinnacle of civilization has ebbed. It's happened all over the world, again and again, often for the same reason- depleted resources. The vast technological advancements of the past century+ were made possible by the easy extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, and the maintenance of these technologies is totally dependent on a steady supply of this cheap energy. Reduced dependence on this energy is not going to be made possible by increasing our need for it by increasing our initiative to develop new exotic technologies. It's like a drug addict trying to ease the desire for drugs by taking more drugs. Environmental concern is a compelling reason to walk or ride a bike, even if choosing to do so for enjoyment is probably more common. The fact is, reducing fossil fuel consumption while maintaining our economy is a hard if not impossible dilemma we're facing. Maybe you won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but to me, it's a matter of which side of a hard problem you chose to live your life. On Jan 20, 12:48 am, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > "B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. " > > Not so fast.....concentrating solar thermal breaks that misconceived > limitation of solar. The sun heats up a reservoir of working fluid. > The hot working fluid runs a steam generator turbine just like a > combustion based power plant. In many cases the power plants > connected to solar thermal arrays are regular power plants that had > run on combustion. Those power plants run 24/7, even though the sun > is only up 10 hours a day. We need a lot of those plants to make a > big dent, but zero battery technology is needed to make that work. > They are approaching the magical "dollar a watt" price point for that > technology. When that happens, China tips to solar because then it's > cheaper than building more coal plants, and then everything > changes. > > On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, Leslie <leslie.bri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Oi! Lots of thoughts.... > > > A) I applaud anyone who can commute via their Rivendell. > > Unfortunately for me, it's 40 mi from driveway to parking lot one > > way... I just can't commute by bike. I do carpool; so, four of us > > make the trip together, instead of each of us in four > > automobiles. (And whilst the obvious reply might be to either > > move to closer to work, or change to a job closer to home, neither of > > those ideas work: I don't want to live near where I work, and there's > > not as good of a job near home. Maybe one day, but, not at this > > time.) > > > B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. > > However, I would like to make a comment along the lines of using the > > non-renewable resources: petroleum has far greater uses than being > > put into gas tanks, IMHO. Medicines that are petrochemical-based, > > lubricants, etc. (bicycle tires!); it's a shame that so much is used > > as fuel, instead of conserved for its other uses. Coal, is going to > > remain the baseload power source for the forseeable future in this > > country; half the electricity in the US is derived from such; unless > > we give up big-screen TV's, air-conditioning, electric heat, ipods, > > eliminate electric cars instead of having more of them, etc., the > > demand for coal will only rise. Yes, nuclear would be the only real > > alternative to coal for electricity, but politics will have to shift > > significantly first. Even if all electricity was produced through > > methods other than coal, though, coal would still be in demand for > > steel production (converted into coke), as chemical basestocks (the > > same way petrochemicals are), etc. (Disclosure: I'm a coal > > reclamation geologist, FWIW...) > > > Think of it this way: our steel Rivendells: steel is an alloy of iron > > and carbon, the carbon is from coke, which is produced from coal. > > Without coal, we wouldn't have our Rivendells... > > > C) I encourage recycling; we need less going into landfills. But > > even if you recycle nothing else, recycle aluminum (cans, non- > > Rivendell bicycles, Land Rovers, etc). The amount of electricity > > needed in the electrolysis process to convert bauxite into metallic > > aluminum is immense; so much electricity is saved simply by keeping > > the aluminum already made in the loop. > > > D) Hope this doesn't step on toes, come across as preachy, etc. Not > > intended to; I realize internet musings often don't convey the visual/ > > audible nuances that we intend to be inferred.... > > > -L -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
